[compiler-rt] r238874 - Tests: disable test of /proc filesystem on Darwin.

[Evgeniy Stepanov]

On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:23 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith
<dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-Jun-05, at 11:11, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It looks like FreeBSD may have /proc, so moving the test to Linux
>> would be bad.
>
> Although it might be disappearing there, based on this ancient
> reference Wikipedia has on its procfs page:
>
> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/2011-February/010760.html
>
>> You could add XFAIL: darwin, or, in this particular
>> case, simply exit(0) if the file in /proc could not be opened.
>
> Anyone know lit well enough to add a `procfs` feature?  Seems like
>
>     REQUIRES: procfs
>
> would be the clearest answer.
>
> I don't like `XFAIL`, since this isn't really a test failure that
> we're going to try to fix eventually -- it's a feature that Darwin
> doesn't have and isn't planning to grow.

Yes, unfortunately lit does not support excluding a single test based
on certain conditions (smth like REQUIRES: NOT darwin, or UNSUPPORTED:
darwin would be useful, maybe even allowing complex boolean
expressions). Also, in this case "procfs" feature would not be enough
because the condition should look like procfs && !android. The test is
broken on Android for other reasons.

>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Tim Northover <tnorthover at apple.com> wrote:
>>>> IMO this test should be moved to Linux/ (and duplicated to an Android/
>>>> directory?),
>>>
>>> I thought that originally, but Wiki says /proc filesystems are on at least some BSDs too (though I'm not sure if they support the particular access being done here).
>>>
>>>> or moved to a LinuxLike/ directory, or the individual test
>>>> file disabled on Darwin.
>>>
>>> I didn't know you could disable individual files, that sounds like a reasonable change if it is possible though.
>>>
>>> Tim.
>