From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A845F38346AB for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:42:51 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org A845F38346AB Received: from mail-ed1-f70.google.com (mail-ed1-f70.google.com [209.85.208.70]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-159-Ji51DCrmPGyfrNs8ObBQig-1; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 06:42:50 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Ji51DCrmPGyfrNs8ObBQig-1 Received: by mail-ed1-f70.google.com with SMTP id h16-20020a05640250d000b00435bab1a7b4so462395edb.10 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 03:42:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=kcfy1JaL7ZiflU5ZyYLCO2BsWiXjfl9FeMre4Q1pb3A=; b=HoS6l1hG60jo2JD1J2grOdC6hhxkIKY0cCmOSm2V/f3j8NK3KDsHNgxSBzNvsYbrf2 nYBiijf+oTdPLMyaJ7V9sK0j34D+7xPTRsza0g5ZHjkPuuNjhzm6qYrq4DYKU22z+pz3 imoIuX840utC34V01rFpd4cRXOmlhk4Tppv5h3yVw/keDP+qCKT7G8RCTo5IoTrlTu7k C2FJ9HVO1Ih3GMP3pKAr75kC/0aU5ALkB4HNC1eZO3q5aS+jQukjlG5V5KqLmQJD2G1q C6b/NA6IIOTE6Otikub67vuUE+zqd0Q57osTBvqKXf+ODe/wETtV4VnB5V+wy1Dyy50x zXCQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora+v4Mx+ykUAcbvxP6FdcbqU/kc36Tj71JUjdlnHOitcaTqjJjEu x8MTv/H8E/faAVcMZFfSmIV3zOVhD1Uxr8IKAlUzqZ5vpoLDXMHHvBV+DxreYDiP28GNq2keAbs rr6rjbJpkJ9KM8g4gIgq5FgEJ3QON2g4= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:354c:b0:431:51e2:eef9 with SMTP id f12-20020a056402354c00b0043151e2eef9mr3434900edd.344.1655894569165; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 03:42:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1sFQAm5txjJs/YEglExNydqZ2orfQZ51r6m5WLRtxImR0Kzgn8kKlt6xAs1exMbplmm7r7pM3U2pgSoIX+NH2Q= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:354c:b0:431:51e2:eef9 with SMTP id f12-20020a056402354c00b0043151e2eef9mr3434885edd.344.1655894569023; Wed, 22 Jun 2022 03:42:49 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Jonathan Wakely Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 11:42:38 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: testsuite: test symlnks ifdef _GLIBCXX_HAVE_SYMLINK To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: gcc Patches , "libstdc++" X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU, DKIM_VALID_EF, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NONE, TXREP, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org X-BeenThere: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Libstdc++ mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2022 10:42:52 -0000 On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 10:25, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Jun 2022 at 07:14, Alexandre Oliva via Libstdc++ > wrote: > > > > > > Several filesystem tests expect to be able to create symlinks even > > when !defined (_GLIBCXX_HAVE_SYMLINK), and fail predictably, reducing > > the amount of testing of other filesystem features. > > > > They are already skipped for mingw targets. I've extended the > > skipping to other targets in which _GLIBCXX_HAVE_SYMLINK is > > undefined. > > > > Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, also tested with a cross to > > aarch64-rtems6. Ok to install? > > OK. P.S. there's a typo in the Subject: "symlnks" not "symlinks". I don't know if you intend to use that as the Git commit summary line. > > I'd like to clean this up so the tests don't rely on the "internal" > HAVE_SYMLINK macro. We could add something like this to > testsuite/util/testsuite_fs.h > > #if defined(__MINGW32__) || defined(__MINGW64__) \ > || !defined (_GLIBCXX_HAVE_SYMLINK) > # define NO_SYMLINKS > #endif > > and then use that in the tests. That way the private macro is only > checked in one place. We can do that later though. > > > > > PS: Testing with trunk was somewhat impaired by various changes in the > > filesystem implementation and tests that cause new failures on rtems6 > > The only significant changes are for PR104161 but the directory > iterators did change fairly significantly. > > Which tests are failing? I might be able to point you to the cause > much faster than you can debug it yourself.