From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4592 invoked by alias); 25 Jul 2012 16:21:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 4479 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jul 2012 16:21:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-gg0-f169.google.com (HELO mail-gg0-f169.google.com) (209.85.161.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:21:00 +0000 Received: by ggm4 with SMTP id 4so1092667ggm.0 for ; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:20:58 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.43.85.69 with SMTP id an5mr25446951icc.37.1343233258216; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:20:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.8.196 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Jul 2012 09:20:58 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2012 16:21:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Move testsuite audit definitions to sysdeps tst-audit.h files From: "Ryan S. Arnold" To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: libc-alpha@sourceware.org, libc-ports@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-07/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 6:57 PM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > Similar to my patch for ldsodefs.h, this patch moves the auditing > definitions for testcases (tst-auditmod1.c, plus duplicate copies of > the x86_64 definitions in several more x86_64-specific tests) to > tst-audit.h files for libc architectures. In the case of alpha, the > libc tst-auditmod1.c still had definitions for a ports architecture - > while alpha had a tst-audit.h file with four of the five required > macros, so I added the missing macro there. > > The structure of the header files reflects that of the previous > definitions in tst-auditmod1.c (thus, most cases have separate files > for 32-bit and 64-bit, while x86_64 has a single file containing > definitions for both 64-bit and x32 with one of the macros having an > unconditional definition and the others being conditional). > > Tested x86 and x86_64. Could architecture maintainers test / review > the changes for other architectures? Tested on powerpc32 and powerpc64 and no new regressions were observed. Ryan S. Arnold