[PATCH] testsuite: support mold linker
Martin Liška
mliska@suse.cz
Mon Dec 5 13:46:26 GMT 2022
More information about the Binutils mailing list
Mon Dec 5 13:46:26 GMT 2022
- Previous message (by thread): [PATCH] testsuite: support mold linker
- Next message (by thread): [PATCH V2] testsuite: support mold linker
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 12/5/22 13:22, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 05.12.2022 13:10, Martin Liška wrote:
>> --- a/binutils/testsuite/binutils-all/objcopy.exp
>> +++ b/binutils/testsuite/binutils-all/objcopy.exp
>> @@ -652,8 +652,8 @@ proc strip_test_with_saving_a_symbol { } {
>>
>> set exec_output [binutils_run $NM "$NMFLAGS $objfile"]
>> set exec_output [prune_warnings $exec_output]
>> - if {![regexp {^([0-9a-fA-F]+)?[ ]+[TD] main} $exec_output] \
>> - && ![regexp {^([0-9a-fA-F]+)?[ ]+T _main} $exec_output]} {
>> + if {![regexp {^([0-9a-fA-F]+)?[ ]+[tTD] main} $exec_output] \
>
> Further below, for libbacktrace, you also include 'd' in the check (and 't'
> was already there). Could you clarify why 't' alone isn't sufficient there,
> but is sufficient here?
Yeah, it is sufficient.
>
>> + && ![regexp {^([0-9a-fA-F]+)?[ ]+[tT] _main} $exec_output]} {
>
> While orthogonal to the purpose of the patch I still wonder whether you
> wouldn't better take the opportunity and fold the two regexp-s (also
> elsewhere):
>
> if {![regexp {^[0-9a-fA-F]*[ ]+[tTD] _?main} $exec_output]} {
Yep, works for me.
>
> (with a simplification to the earlier part also included). Looking at
> strip_executable_with_saving_a_symbol, which you also adjust, the [TtD]
> vs [tT] difference looks to be accidental rather than deliberate.
Correct, D is really accidental value here.
Lemme send V2.
Martin
>
> Jan
- Previous message (by thread): [PATCH] testsuite: support mold linker
- Next message (by thread): [PATCH V2] testsuite: support mold linker
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Binutils mailing list