On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 04:20:29PM +0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 06, 2023 at 02:56:28PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> > At present the kselftest header can't be used with nolibc since it makes
> > use of vprintf() which is not available in nolibc and seems like it would
> > be inappropriate to implement given the minimal system requirements and
> > environment intended for nolibc.
> In fact we already have vfprintf(), and printf() is based on it, so
> wouldn't it just be a matter of adding vprintf() that calls vfprintf()
> for your case ? Maybe just something like this :
> static int vprintf(const char *fmt, va_list args)
> {
> return vfprintf(stdout, fmt, args);
> }
> It's possible I'm missing something, but it's also possible you didn't
> find vfprintf() which is why I prefer to raise my hand ;-)
Oh, yes - I just didn't find that. Can't remember what I searched for
but it didn't match.
> > This has resulted in some open coded
> > kselftests which use nolibc to test features that are supposed to be
> > controlled via libc and therefore better exercised in an environment with
> > no libc.
> Yeah that's ugly. In nolibc-test we now have two build targets so that
> we can more easily verify the compatibility between the default libc and
> nolibc, so my recommendation would be to stick to a common subset of both
> libcs, but not to rely on nolibc-specific stuff that could make tests
> harder to debug.
For these features we simply never want to run with a proper libc since
if we use a libc which has support for the features then we can't
meaningfully interact with them. We're trying to test interfaces that
libc is supposed to use.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
