On 17 April 2020 21:21:41 CEST, Martin Sebor via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: >On 4/17/20 11:48 AM, Alexandre Oliva wrote: >> On Apr 9, 2020, Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com> wrote: >> >>> Some target C libraries that aren't recognized as freestanding don't >>> have filesystem support, so calling tmpnam, fopen/open and >>> remove/unlink fails to link. >> >>> This patch introduces a tmpnam effective target to the testsuite, >and >>> requires it in the tests that call tmpnam. >> >>> Tested on x86_64-linux-gnu, and with a cross to arm-eabi. >>> Ok to install? >> >> >>> for gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog >> >>> * lib/target-supports.exp (check_effective_target_tmpnam): New. >>> * gcc.c-torture/execute/fprintf-2.c: Require it. >>> * gcc.c-torture/execute/printf-2.c: Likewise. >>> * gcc.c-torture/execute/user-printf.c: Likewise. >> >> Ping? >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2020-April/543672.html > >I'm okay with the changes to the tests. > >The target-supports.exp changes look reasonable to me as well but >I can't approve them. Since you said it's for targets that don't >have file I/O functions I wonder if the name would better reflect >that if it were called, say, check_effective_target_fileio?
Since tmpnam is obsolescent in SUSv4 and hence a libc is fine to omit it, I'd rather fix the tests to use functions that are known to stay. If you want a fileio predicate then please do not keys it off obsolescent functions. TIA, > >I don't expect it's necessary to worry about handling errors in >the .exp test. > >Martin
