[PATCH] D64750: [llvm-readelf] - Remove the precompiled binary from gnu-hash-symbols.test.

[Fangrui Song via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

MaskRay added inline comments.


================
Comment at: test/tools/llvm-readobj/elf-hash-symbols.test:3
+
+# RUN: yaml2obj --docnum=1 %s -o %t1-386.o
+# RUN: llvm-readelf --hash-symbols %t1-386.o | FileCheck %s --check-prefix HASH-I386
----------------
`%t1-386.o` -> `%t1-386.so`

It is weird to name an `ET_DYN` `*.o`


================
Comment at: test/tools/llvm-readobj/elf-hash-symbols.test:48
+      - Tag:   DT_GNU_HASH
+## 0x2C + PT_LOAD's p_offset == offset of .gnu.hash
+        Value: 0x000000000000002C
----------------
jhenderson wrote:
> Perhaps you should explain what 0x2C is (I think it's the size of .hash, right?)
> PT_LOAD's p_offset

Nit: I think the usage here is a bit unusual. Normally a `PT_DYNAMIC` is created to contain `.dynamic` and at runtime the rtld decodes `.dynamic` entries by finding the `PT_DYNAMIC` address.

Maybe you can create a PT_DYNAMIC to make the test look more reasonable?

If you decide to do that, delete `- Section: .dynamic` from the `PT_LOAD`.



================
Comment at: test/tools/llvm-readobj/elf-hash-symbols.test:78
+
+## Show that if there are no hash sections, we do not print anything.
+# RUN: yaml2obj --docnum=2 %s -o %t2.o
----------------
jhenderson wrote:
> Do you think there's value for testing the case with exactly one of .hash or .gnu.hash?
I think it is fine not to test that...


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D64750/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D64750