This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: A quick architecture status report
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 10, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> >> Hm, what do you think of this patch? It makes elf/check-execstack an
> >> expected failure on any target where the compiler doesn't put
> >> .note.GNU-stack sections in its output. (UNSUPPORTED might be more
> >> appropriate, but I don't see a way to trigger that from a makefile
> >> conditional.)
> >
> > It's not clear it *should* be expected unless there's a good
> > architecture-specific reason.
>
> This is why I said UNSUPPORTED might be more appropriate.
>
> Regardless of whether it *should* work, the fact is that it doesn't,
> for reasons outside the control of code in glibc, and therefore
> leaving this as a FAIL is inappropriate in my book. Would you be
Well, if you (a new architecture, say) have executable stacks there's
something wrong with your toolchain port unless there's a good reason, and
I think it's desirable for there to be something immediately visible
showing there's something wrong.
That is, we should decide case-by-case whether something should be fixed
or XFAILed. Which for this test should be fix if it's just a
straightforward GCC change needed (ask architecture maintainers), XFAIL
with comments otherwise. Or obsolete the port in the absence of
architecture maintainers (MicroBlaze, for which email to the maintainer
bounces).
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com