[PATCH v2] ld: testsuite: Mark vers26b3 unsupported on x86_64

[Rainer Orth]

Hi Jan,

> On 19.08.2025 14:26, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>> On 19.08.2025 13:55, Rainer Orth wrote:
>>>> Hi H.J.,
>>>>
>>>>> if { [istarget x86_64-*-solaris2*] || [istarget x86_64-*-solaris2*] } then {
>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>>>
>>>>> Typo.   Should we just do
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, thanks.  Alternatively, we could just use [istarget x86_64-*-*]
>>>> instead: x86_64-*-solaris2* (matched via *-*-solaris2*) and
>>>> x86_64-*-linux* are the only x86_64 targets for which this test is
>>>> currently run.
>>>
>>> What do you derive this from? I don't see why the test wouldn't also be
>>> active for x86_64-*-elf, for example. But I guess I'm overlooking something.
>> 
>> indeed: at the top of vers.exp, the driver just returns unless the
>> target is listed explicitly.  x86_64-*-elf isn't among them, neither
>> explicitly or as a wildcard.
>
> Hmm, I see. Another anomaly as it looks, considering the i?86-* targets that

that's because on both Solaris/i386 (once enabled) and Linux/i686 all
vers tests just PASS.  Only x86_64 is the odd man out, on Linux (19
XFAIL, 1 UNSUPPORTED) worse than on Solaris (1 UNSUPPORTED).

> are allowed through. In any event, for the original question - I'd be fine
> either way, but would prefer the more explicit form.

Agreed: if we would mark x86_64-*-* unsupported, we'd never notice if
the test would PASS on some new x86_64 target.

Should I go with the v2 patch with the typo fixed then?

Thanks.
	Rainer

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University