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

[Duncan P. N. Exon Smith]

> On 2015-Jun-05, at 11:32, Evgeniy Stepanov <eugeni.stepanov at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.

Is it broken on Android, as in it should succeed some day?  Then
you just need:

    REQUIRES: procfs
    XFAIL: android

Although from Ed's later response in the thread, it sounds like
BSD's procfs is optional and only weakly related to Linux's, so
I still don't see the problem with moving this to the Linux/
directory (or a new LinuxLike/ directory with `XFAIL: android`).
Posix/ certainly seems wrong, since procfs is apparently
unrelated to POSIX, and doesn't seem to have any sort of
standard behaviour or availability.

Note: from my reading of utils/lit/lit/TestRunner.py, it looks
like `UNSUPPORTED: procfs` is the equivalent of
`REQUIRES: !procfs`, assuming `procfs` is some feature, and all
of these directives spell `&&` as `,`.

> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 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.
>>