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

[H.J. Lu]

On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 7:41 AM Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>

It sounds wrong.  Are you saying that the same emulation generates
extra symbols for Solaris?

-- 
H.J.