"unresolved" as a test result means runtest returns an error, which
can be confusing when there is no apparent error unless you look in
.log files. In particular many tests are skipped without reporting an
error if no target C compiler is found, but if a target C compiler is
found but won't compile a testcase for some reason we used to mark the
test as unresolved. Which is no more worthy of an error than when
lacking a C compiler entirely.
* testsuite/ld-cdtest/cdtest.exp,
* testsuite/ld-checks/checks.exp,
* testsuite/ld-elf/binutils.exp,
* testsuite/ld-elf/compress.exp,
* testsuite/ld-elf/dwarf.exp,
* testsuite/ld-elf/exclude.exp,
* testsuite/ld-elf/frame.exp,
* testsuite/ld-elf/indirect.exp,
* testsuite/ld-elf/linux-x86.exp,
* testsuite/ld-elf/sec-to-seg.exp,
* testsuite/ld-elf/tls_common.exp,
* testsuite/ld-elfcomm/elfcomm.exp,
* testsuite/ld-elfvers/vers.exp,
* testsuite/ld-elfvsb/elfvsb.exp,
* testsuite/ld-elfweak/elfweak.exp,
* testsuite/ld-ifunc/binutils.exp,
* testsuite/ld-mips-elf/mips-elf-flags.exp,
* testsuite/ld-misc/defsym.exp,
* testsuite/ld-mn10300/mn10300.exp,
* testsuite/ld-plugin/lto.exp,
* testsuite/ld-plugin/plugin.exp,
* testsuite/ld-scripts/align.exp,
* testsuite/ld-scripts/assert.exp,
* testsuite/ld-scripts/crossref.exp,
* testsuite/ld-scripts/defined.exp,
* testsuite/ld-scripts/extern.exp,
* testsuite/ld-scripts/log2.exp,
* testsuite/ld-scripts/map-address.exp,
* testsuite/ld-scripts/phdrs.exp,
* testsuite/ld-scripts/phdrs2.exp,
* testsuite/ld-scripts/script.exp,
* testsuite/ld-scripts/section-flags.exp,
* testsuite/ld-scripts/sizeof.exp,
* testsuite/ld-scripts/weak.exp,
* testsuite/ld-selective/selective.exp,
* testsuite/ld-sh/sh.exp,
* testsuite/ld-shared/shared.exp,
* testsuite/ld-srec/srec.exp,
* testsuite/ld-tic6x/tic6x.exp,
* testsuite/ld-undefined/undefined.exp,
* testsuite/ld-undefined/weak-undef.exp,
* testsuite/lib/ld-lib.exp: Don't use unresolved except after
perror. Instead report "unsupported" or "fail".
* ldlang.c (lang_check): Don't complain about relocs or merge
attributes from --just-symbols input.
* testsuite/ld-misc/just-symbols.exp: Just dump .data section.
Don't run test on a number of targets.
This ensures we don't match random data *before* the line we want to
see, ie. that --just-symbols has excluded section contents from
just-symbols-0.o. Oops, missed the ChangeLog entry before too.
* testsuite/ld-misc/just-symbols-1.dd: Revert last change.
* testsuite/ld-misc/just-symbols.exp: Run for x86_64 PE too.
Set LDFLAGS for PE and XCOFF.
* testsuite/ld-misc/just-symbols.ld: Accept XCOFF mapped .data.
Fix a regression from commit a87e1817a4 ("Have the linker fail if any
attempt to link in an executable is made.") and do not reject ET_EXEC
input supplied with the `--just-symbols' option. Such use is legitimate
as the file requested is not actually linked and only the symbols are
extracted. Furthermore it is often the most useful application, as
already observed in our documentation for the option, where it allows
"to refer symbolically to absolute locations of memory defined in other
programs."
Provide a set of tests for the use of ET_EXEC with `--just-symbols'.
These are excluded however for SH/PE targets because they complain if a
section's VMA is 0:
ld: zero vma section reloc detected: `.text' #0 f=32795
ld: zero vma section reloc detected: `.data' #1 f=291
and for x86_64/PE targets because they seem to hardwire the VMA:
100000000 12000000 01000000 00000000 00000000 ................
ld/
PR ld/26288
* ldelf.c (ldelf_after_open): Do not reject ET_EXEC input
supplied with `--just-symbols'.
* testsuite/ld-misc/just-symbols.exp: New test script.
* testsuite/ld-misc/just-symbols-1.dd: New test dump.
* testsuite/ld-misc/just-symbols.ld: New test linker script.
* testsuite/ld-misc/just-symbols-0.s: New test source.
* testsuite/ld-misc/just-symbols-1.s: New test source.
