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

[Rainer Orth]

Hi H.J.,

>> > If it's about testing the contents of the .got section dump, it would
>> > suffice to check the readelf --got-contents output only.  Diffing the
>> > outputs of that on Linux/x86_64 and Solaris/amd64 shows only a few
>> > differences in addresses easily handled by relaxing the patterns as is
>> > done everywhere else:
>> >
>> > --- /homes/ro/libgot-1.so.readelf-got.x86_64  2025-09-05 09:58:17.258268114 +0200
>> > +++ libgot-1.so.readelf-got.amd64     2025-09-05 09:58:27.948840354 +0200
>> > @@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
>> >
>> >  Global Offset Table '.got' contains 1 entry:
>> >   Index:    Address       Reloc         Sym. Name + Addend/Value
>> > -     0: 000000200340 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT foo + 0
>> > +     0: 0000002003c0 R_X86_64_GLOB_DAT foo + 0
>> >
>> >  Global Offset Table '.got.plt' contains 4 entries:
>> >   Index:    Address       Reloc         Sym. Name + Addend/Value
>> > -     0: 000000200348                   200220
>> > -     1: 000000200350                   0
>> > -     2: 000000200358                   0
>> > -     3: 000000200360 R_X86_64_JUMP_SLO bar + 0
>> > +     0: 0000002003c8                   2002a0
>> > +     1: 0000002003d0                   0
>> > +     2: 0000002003d8                   0
>> > +     3: 0000002003e0 R_X86_64_JUMP_SLO bar + 0
>> >
>> > So it seems that HJs claim that the output is highly Linux-specific and
>> > cannot be checked anywhere else is clearly wrong.  That's why I called
>> > his patches lazy.
>>
>> I agree. Judging from the diff above, what's relevant rather looks to be
>> the relative position of the entries wrt one another, not the absolute
>> addresses. I realize such may be difficult to express in .d files, but I
>> don't think that's an excuse to exclude Solaris from testing. If need be,
>> make a 2nd expectations file for Solaris.
>>
>> Jan
>
> These tests are generic x86 tests, not Linux specific.  If Rainer believes
> that a Solaris specific test is needed, he can add one.

you still haven't explained why the specific addresses matter at all for
this specific test when they don't for most other similar tests.  Just
asserting they do instead of explaining doesn't help.

And please: so far I've been operating under the assumption that
binutils is a cross-target project supposed to work on all sorts of OSes
and targets.  If this has changed recently, turning it Linux/x86_64
only, I'd like to know since all my efforts are completely in vain
then...

	Rainer

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