From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2508 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2006 20:22:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 2500 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Feb 2006 20:22:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:22:41 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FCMz1-0000PY-LJ; Thu, 23 Feb 2006 15:22:39 -0500 Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Alexandre Oliva Cc: Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com Subject: Re: cope with varying prelink base addresses Message-ID: <20060223202239.GA1520@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Alexandre Oliva , Kevin Buettner , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, cagney@redhat.com References: <20060220174327.GF19356@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00439.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 23, 2006 at 05:18:11PM -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote: > On Feb 20, 2006, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > The testcase behaves on Solaris, where there's no prelink binary. I'm > > a little worried about it being noisy where -shared doesn't work, > > and with various non-GCC tools. Maybe move the gcc_compiled check > > further up? > > Isn't gcc_compiled only set when you actually try to compile > something? That was my impression when I tried the test earlier, > before I submitted the first version of this patch. Once upon a time get_compiler_info needed $binfile. Now the argument is ignored, so you can move get_compiler_info up before the compilation. > > Oh, and please add copyright notices to the testsuite files; they're > > pretty trivial, but we're trying to be consistent about that. > > Done, thanks for the info, I didn't realize that because other > testcases I looked at didn't have any. Yes - retrofitting this is a bit tricky because some older testcases depend on line numbers. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery