Re: [PATCH 2/7] Skip ELF-specific tests when targeting pe-aarch64

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>]

On 06.01.2023 18:48, Mark Harmstone wrote:
> On 6/1/23 08:11, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 06.01.2023 02:25, Mark Harmstone wrote:
>>> --- a/binutils/testsuite/binutils-all/objcopy.exp
>>> +++ b/binutils/testsuite/binutils-all/objcopy.exp
>>> @@ -1411,6 +1411,7 @@ proc objcopy_test_without_global_symbol { } {
>>>   # The AArch64 and ARM targets preserve mapping symbols
>>>   # in object files, so they will fail this test.
>>>   setup_xfail aarch64*-*-* arm*-*-*
>>> +clear_xfail aarch64*-*-pe* aarch64*-*-mingw*
>> This change clearly doesn't fit with the title, and hence would better be
>> a separate change.
>>
>>> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/aarch64/adr_1.d
>>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/aarch64/adr_1.d
>>> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>>>   #as: -mabi=lp64
>>>   #objdump: -dr
>>> +#notarget: *-*-pe* *-*-mingw*
>> While it's up to the arch maintainers to judge, to me there's nothing ELF-
>> specific in this and similar tests; all you need to do is adjust the
>> expectations to also accept the COFF form of the respective relocations.
>> That's what we do on x86, for example.
>>
>>> --- a/gas/testsuite/gas/aarch64/advsimd-mov-bad.d
>>> +++ b/gas/testsuite/gas/aarch64/advsimd-mov-bad.d
>>> @@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
>>>   #source: advsimd-mov-bad.s
>>>   #readelf: -s --wide
>>> +#notarget: *-*-pe* *-*-mingw*
>> Tests using readelf, otoh, are appropriate to exclude. I wonder though
>> whether that wouldn't better be done in a more generic manner.
> 
> This patch series has already been approved by Nick. I'm resubmitting it because of a last-minute change that ARM insisted we make.
> 
> As I think I said before, I'm indifferent towards the two test patches. I'm including them as a courtesy, because they helped reduce the noise when I was working on the rest of the patches. I'm happy to leave them out if they're at all contentious.

My request wasn't to leave them out, but to properly split them and to avoid
excluding (or xfail) tests when instead test expectations could/should be
adjusted. If Nick has given you approval for the present shape, then so be
it, and then my remarks are largely a suggestion to consider for future
changes.

Jan