[PATCH] ld: Limit "readelf --got-contents" tests

[Jan Beulich]

On 04.09.2025 16:34, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 7:12 AM Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>>
>> Hi H.J.,
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 6:40 AM Rainer Orth <ro@cebitec.uni-bielefeld.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi H.J.,
>>>>
>>>>> Since "readelf --got-contents" tests use -melf_i386, -melf_x86_64 and
>>>>> -melf32_x86_64 emulations, limit theses tests to targets with those
>>>>> emulations.
>>>>>
>>>>>       PR ld/33350
>>>>>       * testsuite/ld-i386/binutils.exp: Limit tests to targets with
>>>>>       -melf_i386 support.
>>>>>       * testsuite/ld-x86-64/binutils.exp: Limit tests to targets with
>>>>>       -melf_x86_64 and -melf32_x86_64 support.
>>>>
>>>> TBH, this feels like pure lazyness to me: as reported in the PR, if you
>>>> exclude the x32 tests (which are strictly Linux-only), at least
>>>> FreeBSD/amd64 has clean results.  Solaris/x86 is partially different,
>>>> but some of this is already addressed in the patch attached to the PR.
>>>>
>>>> FreeBSD/amd64 supports both -melf_i386 and -melf_x86_64, but isn't
>>>> included in the list above.  Besides, that patch already handles the
>>>> -melf_i386 vs. -melf_i386_sol2 (and x86_64 equivalent) difference: it's
>>>> effectively trivial.
>>>
>>> I'd like to make sure that readelf outputs match exactly for a given
>>> emulation.  If Solaris doesn't support such emulation, it should be
>>> skipped.
>>
>> the only difference of those emulations is the additions of a couple of
>> symbols as per ld/emultempl/solaris2.em.
> 
> My v2 patch checks the emulation support.
> 
>> I honestly wonder why you ask me to test your patches at all if your
>> only response to the slightest issue is to restrict the patches to
>> Linux.  After all, binutils isn's a Linux-only project (nor x86-only).
> 
> I want to make sure that --plt-contents displays all relevant
> information correctly.  My tests are emulation specific.   There
> is nothing Linux specific.

Yet still the question stands - if it's just a few extra symbols, can't
you cater for them using #?REGEXP constructs in the expectations?

Jan