https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25732
--- Comment #10 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> --- (In reply to Rainer Orth from comment #8) > > --- Comment #6 from H.J. Lu <hjl.tools at gmail dot com> --- > > > I stopped checking Solaris cross target since the result isn't clean. > > If Solaris cross target test becomes clean, I will test Solaris cross > > I doubt I will be able to do much more than the occasional bugfix in > binutils. In particular, the bfd and ld code bases remain a complete > mystery to me. > > > target again. BTW, you can disable ld for Solaris target by default > > so that ld test won't run by default. > > No point in that: gld is by far good enough on Solaris to bootstrap and > test gcc. It's certainly good to have it for comparisons when > investigating issues with the Solaris ld. > > Looking at your list of failing ld tests > > FAIL: Build pr20995-2.so > FAIL: pr20995-2 > FAIL: ld-ifunc/ifunc-23a-x86 > FAIL: ld-ifunc/ifunc-24a-x86 > FAIL: ld-ifunc/ifunc-25a-x86 > > the last three are highly dubious: Solaris ld.so.1 doesn't support ifunc > and never will, so I'm unsure if those tests can produce useful > results. Certainly not if they are runtime tests. I checked a fix for these IFUNC tests. > That leaves us with the two pr20995-2 ones... Does Solaris support GNU_RELRO? If not, I can skip these for Solaris. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.
