Re: [PATCH 0/4] gprofng: small testsuite adjustments

[Vladimir Mezentsev <vladimir.mezentsev@oracle.com>]

On 12/16/22 00:26, Jan Beulich wrote:
> 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?

Nothing.

>   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.

Agree.
We need to ignore `make check` for the cross build.

I'd rather test the installed binaries.
Can we add the check-install  target in Makefile for this ?

I use a big testsuite for gprofng.
The testsuite has ~400 tests and takes ~4 hours.
The problem is that tests are only available in Oracle.

> 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

Your patches look good to me.

Thank you for the gprofng improvement.
-Vladimir