[PATCH] libstdc++-v3: check for openat

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Jun 28, 2022, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:

> I'll push this today.

Thanks!

> You can just use --enable-libstdcxx-debug

Thanks again ;-)

> Again, that test is *supposed* to return without creating the
> destination. It's testing the failure case.

Aha, and that's why one shouldn't debug something without looking at the
code to see what it's *supposed* to do ;-)

>> FAILED: default@libstdc++,27_io,filesystem,operations,copy_cc
>> FAILED: default@libstdc++,experimental,filesystem,operations,copy_cc
>> 
>> .../27_io/filesystem/operations/copy.cc:5[67]: void test01():
>> Assertion '!exists(to)' failed.

> I don't know what 5[67] means

Sorry for being unclear, it's just that the corresponding failing
asserts are at different lines in the two mentioned testcases, and I
tried to convey that fact with regexp notation.

> Which suggests to me another problem with mkstemp / nonexistent_path.

*lightbulb powers up*

Now it all makes sense.

It isn't *another* problem, that probably regressed when the mkstemp
patch went in and so it got out of my radar and thus out of the patchset
I used in subsequent test runs, but because of the way I use the testing
system, the baseline on top of which the patchset was installed was
still was still that of the previous nightly build, so I effectively
dropped the mkstemp fix.  And since when I joined this project this bug
had already been fixed, I didn't associate the regressions with the
patch.

Apologies for the noise.  Today's baseline, plus your _At_path patch and
my remove_all patch, is all clear.  Yay!

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker                https://FSFLA.org/blogs/lxo/
   Free Software Activist                       GNU Toolchain Engineer
Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice
but very few check the facts.  Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>