This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] x86/CET: Add tests with legacy shared objects

From: "H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>
To: Joseph Myers <joseph at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 13:22:28 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/CET: Add tests with legacy shared objects
References: <20180718031104.GA12426@intel.com> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1807182017480.7221@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>

On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 1:19 PM, Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Jul 2018, H.J. Lu wrote:
>
>>       * sysdeps/x86/Makefile (tests): Add tst-legacy-1,
>>       tst-legacy-2, tst-legacy-2a, tst-legacy-3, tst-legacy-4,
>>       tst-legacy-4a, tst-legacy-4b and tst-legacy-4c.
>>       (modules-names): Add tst-legacy-mod-1, tst-legacy-mod-2 and
>>       tst-legacy-mod-4.
>
> I think the use of "legacy" without "cet" in test names is problematic.
> You mean legacy with respect to CET support, but there could be any number
> of new features with respect to which there are legacy objects (lacking
> support for the feature, or lacking markings indicating state with respect
> to the feature, or similar).  So I think the test names should all mention
> "cet" explicitly.
>

Will rename tst-legacy-XX to tst-cet-legacy-XX be sufficient?

Thanks.


-- 
H.J.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH] x86/CET: Add tests with legacy shared objects
  - From: Joseph Myers

References:
- [PATCH] x86/CET: Add tests with legacy shared objects
  - From: H.J. Lu
- Re: [PATCH] x86/CET: Add tests with legacy shared objects
  - From: Joseph Myers

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]