This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Question about macro _GLIBCXX_RES_LIMITS in libstdc++ testsuite
- From: "Bin.Cheng" <amker dot cheng at gmail dot com>
- To: Jim Wilson <jim dot wilson at linaro dot org>
- Cc: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>, "gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 10:04:16 +0800
- Subject: Re: Question about macro _GLIBCXX_RES_LIMITS in libstdc++ testsuite
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAHFci2_nbpqa2_SkCgAKkWgKouudWz_avyvO6SrYo-sJV5kEOA at mail dot gmail dot com> <alpine dot BSF dot 2 dot 02 dot 1505160529340 dot 55480 at arjuna dot pair dot com> <CAHFci29k9ToujFkRDz_kmhWUKGDg8bcNotWc0zum4ssa2Lritw at mail dot gmail dot com> <55594315 dot 9050503 at linaro dot org>
On Mon, May 18, 2015 at 9:40 AM, Jim Wilson <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 05/17/2015 01:16 AM, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:35 PM, Hans-Peter Nilsson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015, Bin.Cheng wrote:
>>>> In libstdc++ testsuite, I noticed that macro _GLIBCXX_RES_LIMITS is
>>>> checked/set by GLIBCXX_CHECK_SETRLIMIT, which is further guarded by
>>>> GLIBCXX_IS_NATIVE as below:
> The setrlimit checks were made dependent on GLIBCXX_IS_NATIVE on Aug 9,
> This is 3 days after the feature was added. This was 14 years ago, so
> people might not remember exactly why the change was made. There was
> probably no specific reason for this, other than a concern that it might
> not work cross, and/or wasn't considered worth the effort to make it
> work cross at the time.
> It does look like this can work cross, at least for a cross to a linux
> target. For a cross to a bare metal target, it should be OK to run the
> tests, they will just fail and disable the macros. Someone just needs
> write the patches to make it work and test it. You could try submitting
> a bug report if you haven't already done so.
It's very probably the case as you said. We already had a patch and
will send it for review.