[1/2] ld: Fix relocatable.d XFAIL/notarget entry for hppa

  PR 30734
* ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d: Fix notarget entry for hppa to match
  hppa{1.1,2.0}*, like hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gnu which Gentoo uses.

Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
---
 ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
  

On 08.08.2023 03:23, Sam James via Binutils wrote:
> PR 30734
> * ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d: Fix notarget entry for hppa to match
>   hppa{1.1,2.0}*, like hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gnu which Gentoo uses.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>

Since the two patches deal with the only two outliers, I'd consider these
to be at least very close to obvious. Feel free to put in. Yet in the
future for arch-specific changes please remember to Cc respective arch
maintainers.

Jan
  

Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> writes:

> On 08.08.2023 03:23, Sam James via Binutils wrote:
>> PR 30734
>> * ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d: Fix notarget entry for hppa to match
>>   hppa{1.1,2.0}*, like hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gnu which Gentoo uses.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
>
> Since the two patches deal with the only two outliers, I'd consider these
> to be at least very close to obvious. Feel free to put in. Yet in the
> future for arch-specific changes please remember to Cc respective arch
> maintainers.

1. ACK, pushed. Thank you. Sorry, I was a bit too conservative here.
2. Fair point, I will do this in future.

What's the rule for backports? Can I just do those if obvious? What
about if they're not my commits but I've tested them and they're
straightforward?

best,
sam
  

On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 02:23:59AM +0100, Sam James via Binutils wrote:
> PR 30734
> * ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d: Fix notarget entry for hppa to match
>   hppa{1.1,2.0}*, like hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gnu which Gentoo uses.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> ---
>  ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d b/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d
> index d0fba97a104..cb39baa52bc 100644
> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d
> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d
> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>  #source: simple.s
>  #ld: -r -T relocatable.t
>  #readelf: -S --wide
> -#xfail: hppa-*-*
> +#xfail: hppa*-*-*
>  
>  #...
>    \[[ 0-9]+\] \.text.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t]+0+800000[ \t0-9a-f]+AX.*
> -- 
> 2.41.0

hppa64-hp-hpux11.23  +XPASS: relocatable with script
hppa64-linux-gnu  +XPASS: relocatable with script
  

On 08.08.2023 19:53, Sam James wrote:
> 
> Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> writes:
> 
>> On 08.08.2023 03:23, Sam James via Binutils wrote:
>>> PR 30734
>>> * ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d: Fix notarget entry for hppa to match
>>>   hppa{1.1,2.0}*, like hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gnu which Gentoo uses.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
>>
>> Since the two patches deal with the only two outliers, I'd consider these
>> to be at least very close to obvious. Feel free to put in. Yet in the
>> future for arch-specific changes please remember to Cc respective arch
>> maintainers.
> 
> 1. ACK, pushed. Thank you. Sorry, I was a bit too conservative here.
> 2. Fair point, I will do this in future.
> 
> What's the rule for backports? Can I just do those if obvious?

Unless while the tree is closed, I'd say generally yes, but after waiting
a little (to see whether there's fallout nevertheless, as appears to be
the case here). Of course it also doesn't hurt asking.

> What
> about if they're not my commits but I've tested them and they're
> straightforward?

I'm less sure here - I, for one, would ask in such a case, despite (now)
being global maintainer.

Jan
  

Alan Modra <amodra@gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 02:23:59AM +0100, Sam James via Binutils wrote:
>> PR 30734
>> * ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d: Fix notarget entry for hppa to match
>>   hppa{1.1,2.0}*, like hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gnu which Gentoo uses.
>> 
>> Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
>> ---
>>  ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> 
>> diff --git a/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d b/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d
>> index d0fba97a104..cb39baa52bc 100644
>> --- a/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d
>> +++ b/ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d
>> @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
>>  #source: simple.s
>>  #ld: -r -T relocatable.t
>>  #readelf: -S --wide
>> -#xfail: hppa-*-*
>> +#xfail: hppa*-*-*
>>  
>>  #...
>>    \[[ 0-9]+\] \.text.*[ \t]+PROGBITS[ \t]+0+800000[ \t0-9a-f]+AX.*
>> -- 
>> 2.41.0
>
> hppa64-hp-hpux11.23  +XPASS: relocatable with script
> hppa64-linux-gnu  +XPASS: relocatable with script

Will fix on weekend, thanks, and apologies Alan.

I didn't want to have to expand with Gentoo's CHOSTs for 32-bit
but I think it should be fine, as we then cover both Linux
distributions which do HPPA (Debian already w/ hppa-*, and Gentoo
with hppa1.1/hppa2.0).

thanks,
sam
  

Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> writes:

> On 08.08.2023 19:53, Sam James wrote:
>> 
>> Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com> writes:
>> 
>>> On 08.08.2023 03:23, Sam James via Binutils wrote:
>>>> PR 30734
>>>> * ld/testsuite/ld-elf/relocatable.d: Fix notarget entry for hppa to match
>>>>   hppa{1.1,2.0}*, like hppa2.0-unknown-linux-gnu which Gentoo uses.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
>>>
>>> Since the two patches deal with the only two outliers, I'd consider these
>>> to be at least very close to obvious. Feel free to put in. Yet in the
>>> future for arch-specific changes please remember to Cc respective arch
>>> maintainers.
>> 
>> 1. ACK, pushed. Thank you. Sorry, I was a bit too conservative here.
>> 2. Fair point, I will do this in future.
>> 
>> What's the rule for backports? Can I just do those if obvious?
>
> Unless while the tree is closed, I'd say generally yes, but after waiting
> a little (to see whether there's fallout nevertheless, as appears to be
> the case here). Of course it also doesn't hurt asking.
>
>> What
>> about if they're not my commits but I've tested them and they're
>> straightforward?
>
> I'm less sure here - I, for one, would ask in such a case, despite (now)
> being global maintainer.

Thank you for the advice Jan!