[PING global maintainer/testsuite expert] Re: [patch bfd]: Win32 coff-i386 and coff-x86_64 broken in_reloc_p

[Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>]

On 31/03/2010 10:35, Kai Tietz wrote:

> bfd/

>        * coff-i386.c (in_reloc_p): Check also for R_SECREL32.
>        * coff-x86_64.c (in_reloc_p): Check also for R_AMD64_SECREL.

  This part is fine.  Thank you.

> ld/testsuite

>        * ld-pe/basefile1.s: New.
>        * ld-pe/pe-basefile.exp: New.

  Sorry to be picky, but is there any reason to put this test in a separate
.exp file?  I was told it was a bad thing to proliferate .exp files, so I put
some effort into reorganising the pe tests into three categories.  This should
go fine in pe-compile.exp, shouldn't it?  I checked the code, I didn't see
anything that would clash or cause problems.

[PING]:   Also, I'd like if one of the older hands or someone who knows about
the testsuite can confirm it's ok to assume the presence and syntax of 'wc
-c'?  (I expect it will be, but if it's not, I guess we could change the test
to use the freshly-built 'size' instead.)

    cheers,
      DaveK