make check build failure (tst-printf-bz18872)

  > It seems like that is still a bug in the Makefile though, should I
> submit a patch?

I just committed this myself:

2015-10-08  Roland McGrath  <roland@hack.frob.com>

	[BZ #18872]
	* stdio-common/Makefile ($(objpfx)tst-unbputc.out):
	Move out from under [$(run-built-tests) = yes] conditional.
	($(objpfx)tst-printf.out, $(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872.c): Likewise.
	($(objpfx)tst-printf-bz18872-mem.out): Likewise.



> I found one other issue while doing 'make check'.  I am using GCC 4.6.3
> on MIPS and string/tester.c didn't compile due to a
> memset-transposed-args warning.  It looks like there is handling for
> this in GCC 5.0 and later but not for 4.6.

Please address that in a separate thread.


Thanks,
Roland
  

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Roland McGrath wrote:

> > It seems like that is still a bug in the Makefile though, should I
> > submit a patch?
> 
> I just committed this myself:
> 
> 2015-10-08  Roland McGrath  <roland@hack.frob.com>
> 
> 	[BZ #18872]
> 	* stdio-common/Makefile ($(objpfx)tst-unbputc.out):
> 	Move out from under [$(run-built-tests) = yes] conditional.

That looks wrong.  tst-unbputc.sh uses test_program_prefix to run a newly 
built test.
  

> > 2015-10-08  Roland McGrath  <roland@hack.frob.com>
> > 
> > 	[BZ #18872]
> > 	* stdio-common/Makefile ($(objpfx)tst-unbputc.out):
> > 	Move out from under [$(run-built-tests) = yes] conditional.
> 
> That looks wrong.  tst-unbputc.sh uses test_program_prefix to run a newly 
> built test.

Oh, it was unrelated.  I failed to notice that.  But why is it wrong?  I
don't see why we need to avoid defining the targets.  Adding them to
tests-special is conditionalized, so nothing will depend on that.
  

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015, Roland McGrath wrote:

> > > 2015-10-08  Roland McGrath  <roland@hack.frob.com>
> > > 
> > > 	[BZ #18872]
> > > 	* stdio-common/Makefile ($(objpfx)tst-unbputc.out):
> > > 	Move out from under [$(run-built-tests) = yes] conditional.
> > 
> > That looks wrong.  tst-unbputc.sh uses test_program_prefix to run a newly 
> > built test.
> 
> Oh, it was unrelated.  I failed to notice that.  But why is it wrong?  I
> don't see why we need to avoid defining the targets.  Adding them to
> tests-special is conditionalized, so nothing will depend on that.

In that case it should be OK (but maybe we should be consistent, in 
whatever direction, about when such rules are / aren't conditionalized).
  

> In that case it should be OK (but maybe we should be consistent, in 
> whatever direction, about when such rules are / aren't conditionalized).

I think consistency is good.  I think we should favor not conditionalizing
anywhere that we do not have to, just to reduce clutter in the makefiles.
  

On 10/08/2015 06:24 PM, Roland McGrath wrote:
>> In that case it should be OK (but maybe we should be consistent, in 
>> whatever direction, about when such rules are / aren't conditionalized).
> 
> I think consistency is good.  I think we should favor not conditionalizing
> anywhere that we do not have to, just to reduce clutter in the makefiles.

+1.

c.