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

[Mark Harmstone <mark@harmstone.com>]

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.
>
> Jan

Hi Jan,

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.

Mark