[PATCH v3] libsframe: testsuite: Fix testsuite build on Solaris

[Rainer Orth]

Hi Indu,

>> Tested on {i386,amd64}-pc-solaris2.11, {sparc,sparcv9}-sun-solaris2.11,
>> {x86_64,i686}-pc-linux-gnu, and amd64-pc-freebsd14.0.
>> Coauthored-By: Alan Modra<amodra@gmail.com>
>> Ok for trunk?
>
> Patch looks good to me.  Two comments inlined below.

thanks.

> Thanks for doing this.  This being your work/fix, I've reassigned the PR
> 33168 to you.  It will be good to add a "PR libsframe/33168" to the commit
> log for marking the fix.

That's one thing I wondered about: libsframe currently doesn't have no
ChangeLog file.  Unlike over in gcc, that's not generated from the
commit messages.  So far I missed that the libsfram commit message *do*
include ChangeLog snippets.  I'll add one to the commit, together with
the PR reference.

Maybe it would be best to follow the rest of binutils and start manually
adding the entries to an actual ChangeLog file?  That would be less
confusing and make the project consistent in this regard.  However, I'd
actually prefer if binutils could just follow gcc's lead and extract the
info from the commit messages: it avoids the cumbersome and easily
forgotten step of manually adding them at commit time.

>> diff --git a/libsframe/testsuite/sframe-test.h b/libsframe/testsuite/sframe-test.h
>> new file mode 100644
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/libsframe/testsuite/sframe-test.h
>> @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
>> +/* sframe-test.h -- Common libsframe testsuite header.
>> +
>> +   Copyright (C) 2022-2025 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
>> +
>
> Typo: 2022-2025 --> 2025

Really?  The bulk of the file is just copied from existing code.
Shouldn't it retain that code's date range?

>> +/* PR 33168: Solaris <sys/wait.h> with __EXTENSIONS__ defined gets a
>> +   declaration of wait().  This conflicts with <dejagnu.h>'s wait
>> +   definition that is only removed after DejaGnu 1.6.3.  */
>> +#define wait dg_wait
>> +#include <dejagnu.h>
>> +#undef wait
>> +
>> +#endif /* _SFRAME_TEST_H */
>> 
>
> Although the -Wall for testsuite was redundant, just wanted to point out
> that removing it is not enough to address the current warnings seen:
>
> In file included from
> <src-path>/libsframe/testsuite/libsframe.decode/frecnt-1.c:18:
> <src-path>/libsframe/testsuite/sframe-test.h:36:14: warning: no previous
> prototype for ‘dg_wait’ [-Wmissing-prototypes]
>    36 | #define wait dg_wait
>       |              ^~~~~~~

Sorry I missed that: the make check is usually too verbose to check on
anything but complete failures.

> Personally, I find the warning distracting in the logs. The buildbot does
> seem to track warnings for testsuite too, so it might complain about the
> new warnings in the testsuite.

Agreed.

> If adding a prototype "void wait (void);" is not preferable, we can add
> -Wno-missing-prototypes for the testsuite ?

I prefer the prototype route over the warning myself if it works.

Should I just commit the final patch with those updates or post a v4?

Thanks.

	Rainer

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