This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [PATCH] make ld-elf/eh[1-4] tests assume less about x86_64 targets
- From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
- To: Roland McGrath <mcgrathr at google dot com>
- Cc: binutils at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2012 12:09:48 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] make ld-elf/eh[1-4] tests assume less about x86_64 targets
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Roland McGrath <email@example.com> wrote:
> These test cases are written to apply to all x86_64-*-* targets,
> but they assume details of file and address space layout that are
> not true of all targets. ?This makes them encode their assumptions
> explicitly. ?Regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu native, and these
> tests now pass for --target=x86_64-nacl as well.
> Ok for trunk?
> 2012-04-06 ?Roland McGrath ?<firstname.lastname@example.org>
> ? ? ? ?* ld-elf/eh1.d: Add explicit --64 to as options, and explicit
> ? ? ? ?-melf_x86_64 and -Ttext to ld options, so we don't assume every
> ? ? ? ?x86_64-*-* target uses --64 (vs --x32) by default or has the
> ? ? ? ?same address space layout.
> ? ? ? ?* ld-elf/eh2.d: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* ld-elf/eh3.d: Likewise.
> ? ? ? ?* ld-elf/eh4.d: Likewise.
Since I wrote them, I guess I can approve their changes. OK.
> ? ? ? ?* ld-elf/elf.exp: For target *-*-nacl*, use options_regsub(ld) to
> ? ? ? ?map -melf_x86_64 to -melf_x86_64_nacl.
It looks OK to me. But I can't approve it.