testsuits:deletetest-xfail-tst-protected1a and test-xfail-tst-protected1b

  The minimum GCC requirement is GCC 6.2 after 4dcbbc3b28aaeafe23e1a30db84055aa6f6fa987
The minimum GNU binutils requirement is 2.25 after 073e8fa7739ed453d6854b834f290c263a6cdb9f
Therefore, delete test-xfail-tst-protected1a and test-xfail-tst-protected1b
---
 elf/Makefile | 7 -------
 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
  

On 28/09/2021 06:40, Yang Yanchao via Libc-alpha wrote:
> The minimum GCC requirement is GCC 6.2 after 4dcbbc3b28aaeafe23e1a30db84055aa6f6fa987
> The minimum GNU binutils requirement is 2.25 after 073e8fa7739ed453d6854b834f290c263a6cdb9f
> Therefore, delete test-xfail-tst-protected1a and test-xfail-tst-protected1b

LGTM, thanks.

Reviewed-by: Adhemerval Zanella  <adhemerval.zanella@linaro.org>

> ---
>  elf/Makefile | 7 -------
>  1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/elf/Makefile b/elf/Makefile
> index 26986c0692..6592aa1193 100644
> --- a/elf/Makefile
> +++ b/elf/Makefile
> @@ -380,13 +380,6 @@ tests += tst-protected1a tst-protected1b
>  $(objpfx)tst-protected1a: $(addprefix $(objpfx),tst-protected1moda.so tst-protected1modb.so)
>  $(objpfx)tst-protected1b: $(addprefix $(objpfx),tst-protected1modb.so tst-protected1moda.so)
>  tst-protected1modb.so-no-z-defs = yes
> -# These tests fail with GCC versions prior to 5.1 and with some versions
> -# of binutils.  See https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17709
> -# and https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65248 for details.
> -# Perhaps in future we can make these XFAILs conditional on some detection
> -# of compiler/linker behavior/version.
> -test-xfail-tst-protected1a = yes
> -test-xfail-tst-protected1b = yes
>  endif
>  ifeq (yesyes,$(have-fpie)$(build-shared))
>  modules-names += tst-piemod1
>
  

On Tue, 28 Sep 2021, Yang Yanchao via Libc-alpha wrote:

> The minimum GCC requirement is GCC 6.2 after 4dcbbc3b28aaeafe23e1a30db84055aa6f6fa987
> The minimum GNU binutils requirement is 2.25 after 073e8fa7739ed453d6854b834f290c263a6cdb9f
> Therefore, delete test-xfail-tst-protected1a and test-xfail-tst-protected1b

But the binutils changes referred to are architecture-specific, and I 
believe many architectures don't have such changes in binutils, or 
corresponding glibc changes, at all.  What architectures have you done 
execution testing of this change on?  Specifically, have you done 
execution testing for any of the architectures listed at 
https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus under "Handle 
ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA" as missing such support?
  

On 28/09/2021 17:38, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Sep 2021, Yang Yanchao via Libc-alpha wrote:
> 
>> The minimum GCC requirement is GCC 6.2 after 4dcbbc3b28aaeafe23e1a30db84055aa6f6fa987
>> The minimum GNU binutils requirement is 2.25 after 073e8fa7739ed453d6854b834f290c263a6cdb9f
>> Therefore, delete test-xfail-tst-protected1a and test-xfail-tst-protected1b
> 
> But the binutils changes referred to are architecture-specific, and I 
> believe many architectures don't have such changes in binutils, or 
> corresponding glibc changes, at all.  What architectures have you done 
> execution testing of this change on?  Specifically, have you done 
> execution testing for any of the architectures listed at 
> https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/PortStatus under "Handle 
> ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA" as missing such support?
> 


In such case, shouldn't both https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17709 and
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65248 be kept opened to track it?

Or at least update the comment to refer to the ELF_RTYPE_CLASS_EXTERN_PROTECTED_DATA?