This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: sparc test failures
"H . J . Lu" <hjl@valinux.com> writes:
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 02:30:33PM +0100, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> >
> > In HJ Lu's 2.10.91.0.2 version the following tests fail when running
> > the testsuite on sparc-linux (haven't tried the official CVS yet):
> >
> > FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (non PIC)
> > FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (non PIC, load offset)
> > FAIL: visibility (hidden_weak) (PIC main, non PIC so)
> > FAIL: visibility (protected_weak) (non PIC)
> > FAIL: visibility (protected_weak) (non PIC, load offset)
> > FAIL: visibility (protected_weak) (PIC main, non PIC so)
> >
>
> If you take a look, I marked non-PIC as expected to FAIL on ia64 and
> ppc. You may want to do the same for sparc. But you have to ask the
> sparc expert to see if sparc supports DSO without PIC.
Sparc experts, is this patch correct? Does sparc support DSOs without
PIC?
Andreas
2001-02-23 Andreas Jaeger <aj@suse.de>
* testsuite/ld-elfvsb/elfvsb.exp (visibility_run): Mark non-PIC on sparc*linux as
expected to fail.
============================================================
Index: ld/testsuite/ld-elfvsb/elfvsb.exp
--- ld/testsuite/ld-elfvsb/elfvsb.exp 2001/02/15 01:17:06 1.9
+++ ld/testsuite/ld-elfvsb/elfvsb.exp 2001/02/23 10:56:12
@@ -235,6 +235,7 @@
if { [ string match $visibility "hidden_weak" ]
|| [ string match $visibility "protected_weak" ] } {
setup_xfail "powerpc-*-linux*"
+ setup_xfail "sparc*-*-linux*"
}
if { ![ string match $visibility "hidden_undef" ]
&& ![ string match $visibility "protected_undef" ] } {
@@ -317,6 +318,7 @@
if { [ string match $visibility "hidden_weak" ]
|| [ string match $visibility "protected_weak" ] } {
setup_xfail "powerpc-*-linux*"
+ setup_xfail "sparc*-*-linux*"
}
if { ![ string match $visibility "hidden_undef" ]
&& ![ string match $visibility "protected_undef" ] } {
--
Andreas Jaeger
SuSE Labs aj@suse.de
private aj@arthur.inka.de
http://www.suse.de/~aj