From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26193 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2018 17:43:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 26183 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jun 2018 17:43:04 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=Hx-languages-length:823, our X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:43:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: DJ Delorie CC: , Subject: Re: RFC V4 test-in-container In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2018-06/txt/msg01014.txt.bz2 On Fri, 29 Jun 2018, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Joseph Myers writes: > > I remain concerned about copying /bin/sh rather than having a local > > sh-substitute. Can using the newly built dynamic linker to trace what's > > required by /bin/sh really work even in as simple a case as testing i386 > > glibc on an x86_64 system, where /bin/sh is a 64-bit binary? > > I can write a /bin/sh substitute as long as none of our tests test *it* > and not just the calls that require it ;-) I think that's the right thing to do - avoid any dependence on host binaries or libraries beyond the libgcc_s / libstdc++ etc. shared libraries, *for the ABI for which glibc is built*, on which the compiler automatically introduces dependencies. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com