Re: [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: Fix build with host headers and libc

[Thomas Weißschuh]

On 2026-02-16 22:21:18+0000, David Laight wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2026 19:51:24 +0100
> Thomas Weißschuh <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On 2026-02-14 11:57:24+0000, david.laight.linux@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: David Laight <david.laight.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > Many systems don't have strlcpy() or strlcat().
> > > Change is_nolibc to a #define so that the calls are optimised out.
> > > Create #define wrappers so the code is syntactially valid.
> > > 
> > > Additionall readdir_r() is likely to be marked deprecated.  
> > 
> > "Additionally"
> > 
> > > So disable "-Wdeprecated-declarations".  
> > 
> > Could you split this into multiple patches?
> > 
> > > Fixes: 6fe8360b16acb  ("selftests/nolibc: also test libc-test through regular selftest framework")
> > > Signed-off-by: David Laight <david.laight.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 13 +++++++++----
> > >  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > > index 1b9d3b2e2491..eb2421b42e75 100644
> > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> > > @@ -66,13 +66,18 @@ static const char *argv0;
> > >  /* will be used by constructor tests */
> > >  static int constructor_test_value;
> > >  
> > > -static const int is_nolibc =
> > >  #ifdef NOLIBC
> > > -	1
> > > +#define is_nolibc 1
> > >  #else
> > > -	0
> > > +#define is_nolibc 0
> > > +/* strlcat() and strlcpy() may not be in the system headers. */
> > > +#undef strlcat
> > > +#undef strlcpy
> > > +#define strlcat(d, s, l) 0
> > > +#define strlcpy(d, s, l) 0
> > > +/* readdir_r() is likely to be marked deprecated */
> > > +#pragma GCC diagnostic ignored "-Wdeprecated-declarations"
> > >  #endif  
> > 
> > I'd prefer to disable this via $(cc-option) in the Makefile.
> > Unknown pragmas tend to introduce more warnings.
> 
> There is already a similar pragma in the file and this one isn't a new one warning.

Fair enough, then this is fine. Maybe I'll clean it up at some point.

(...)