Home Original page

[PATCH 0/4] gprofng: small testsuite adjustments

Jan Beulich jbeulich@suse.com
Fri Dec 16 08:26:58 GMT 2022 
While the latter two patches are purely cosmetic, I wonder how things have
worked properly without the former two. I'm therefore not going to exclude that
the changes done really need to be conditional upon some environmental aspects,
but it's not clear to me what these would be (or why).

Beyond / independent of these small fixes I'm still concerned by the time
running these testcases takes: The few tests here take quite a bit longer than
building _and_ testing all of the rest of binutils (not gdb of course) for
those targets where gprofng is actually available. One aspect I'm wondering
about in particular: What is it that is actually tested when the binutils build
is a cross one? The produced binaries are host executables, so it's unclear to
me what meaning it has to run on them a profiler (supposedly) targeting another
architecture. Eliminating the testing in such cases would already speed up the
mass testing of many targets in a noticable way.

There are still "warning: always_inline function might not be inlinable"
instances left with the gcc version I'm using, but I can't tell whether that's
a reason for worrying.

1: adjust linking of synprog
2: correct names for signal handling tests
3: correct line continuation in endcases.c
4: eliminate bogus casts

Jan
More information about the Binutils mailing list