From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
To: Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com>
Cc: gcc Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
"libstdc++" <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] libstdc++: testsuite: test symlnks ifdef _GLIBCXX_HAVE_SYMLINK
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2022 12:29:38 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACb0b4kbbhiO8+dhKTR5WixupkkH8GbUjVJQsJmTAME73qSSAg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CACb0b4mkWE59c2ZLRT5oFzjmeOiarLraRzadkwJY7OgPr_xaHA@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 12:28, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2022 at 12:02, Alexandre Oliva <oliva@adacore.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 22, 2022, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > > OK.
> >
> > > 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
> >
> > I took your suggestion, and took it a little further. Here's the
> > result.
>
> Nice, thanks!
>
> >
> > Regstrapped on x86_64-linux-gnu, also tested with a cross to
> > aarch64-rtems6. Ok to install?
>
> All the changes to the actual tests are fine.
>
> > diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
> > index 93fdfee687ddb..d71d88fb99837 100644
> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/libstdc++.exp
> > @@ -974,13 +974,16 @@ proc v3_try_preprocess { name code flags } {
> > }
> >
> > # Return 1 if COND evaluates to true in the preprocessor, 0 otherwise.
> > -# The <bits/c++config.h> config header is included.
> > -proc v3_check_preprocessor_condition { name cond } {
> > +# The <bits/c++config.h> config header is included, and INC, if given,
> > +# is pasted between it and the condition evaluation, so it can be used
> > +# for additional #include's.
> > +proc v3_check_preprocessor_condition { name cond inc } {
>
> Could this new arg be given a default value, so every caller doesn't
> have to pass "" to it?
>
> proc v3_check_preprocessor_condition { name cond {inc ""} } {
>
> > diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_fs.h b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_fs.h
> > index 9358a04e56c1f..048f03103e436 100644
> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_fs.h
> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/util/testsuite_fs.h
> > @@ -42,6 +42,11 @@ namespace test_fs = std::experimental::filesystem;
> > #include <random> // std::random_device
> > #endif
> >
> > +#if defined(__MINGW32__) || defined(__MINGW64__) \
> > + || !defined (_GLIBCXX_HAVE_SYMLINK)
> > +#define NO_SYMLINKS
> > +#endif
>
> I think this could be simplified to just
> #ifndef _GLIBCXX_HAVE_SYMLINK
> because that is false on mingw:
> $ grep HAVE_SYMLINK include/x86_64-w64-mingw32/bits/c++config.h
> /* #undef _GLIBCXX_HAVE_SYMLINK */
>
> Windows uses CreateSymbolicLinkA to create its symlinks.
>
> And if NO_SYMLINKS just becomes a "public" name for
> _GLIBCXX_HAVE_SYMLINK that we can use in tests, then the dg
> check_v3_target_fs_symlinks proc could just test that macro too,
> without needing to include <testsuite_fs.h> to test NO_SYMLINKS. I
> don't feel strongly about that though. The $inc addition to
> v3_check_preprocessor_condition seems useful (although it will slow
> down evaluation of that condition, because <testsuite_fs.h> includes a
> lot of other headers).
> And if the definition of NO_SYMLINKS gets more complicated in future
> (e.g. we add something like && !defined __foo__) then using
> NO_SYMLINKS in the dg proc will keep them in sync.
Oh, and we need to be able to include <testsuite_fs.h> for the similar
NO_SPACE macro in your next patch, so we might as well check
NO_SYMLINKS the same way.
> I'd like the default argument for v3_check_preprocessor_condition so
> we don't need to add "" everywhere in that file, but the rest of the
> patch is OK as-is or simplified as above, I don't mind. Even keeping
> the MINGW tests in the NO_SYMLINKS definition is OK (it certainly
> doesn't hurt, it's just a bit redundant).
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-06-23 11:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-06-22 6:13 Alexandre Oliva
2022-06-22 9:25 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-06-22 10:42 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-06-23 3:41 ` Alexandre Oliva
2022-06-23 10:53 ` Alexandre Oliva
2022-06-23 11:39 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-06-23 11:02 ` Alexandre Oliva
2022-06-23 11:28 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-06-23 11:29 ` Jonathan Wakely [this message]
2022-06-23 12:35 ` Alexandre Oliva
2022-06-23 12:37 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-06-24 2:32 ` Alexandre Oliva
2022-06-27 13:29 ` Alexandre Oliva
2022-06-27 13:36 ` Jonathan Wakely
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CACb0b4kbbhiO8+dhKTR5WixupkkH8GbUjVJQsJmTAME73qSSAg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=oliva@adacore.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).