I can think of two ways to think about the purpose of this test:
1. distinguish stack overflow from an access to an invalid address
("programm error")
2. distinguish stack overflow from other cases when SIGSEGV is sent
Under view 2, then the access to an invalid address is just an
implementation detail: a simple way to cause SIGSEGV.
I assume view 2 in this patch and simply consider the platform which
doesn't send a SIGSEGV on this condition (but rather sends SIGILL as
E2K (i.e., elbrus)) not suitable for this implementation of the
test. Therefore, the result is skip.
Under view 1, it could even be consiidered a success: the distinction
is made, but not thanks to our code, but thanks to the platform
sending a different signal.
Here is what it looks like on E2K (i.e., elbrus):
$ ./test-c-stack 1; echo $?
Illegal instruction
132
$ ./test-c-stack; echo $?
test-c-stack: stack overflow
1
$
---
tests/test-c-stack2.sh | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/tests/test-c-stack2.sh b/tests/test-c-stack2.sh
index 0cd49c969..a04d861cd 100755
--- a/tests/test-c-stack2.sh
+++ b/tests/test-c-stack2.sh
@@ -23,6 +23,11 @@ case $? in
exit 77
fi
;;
+ 132) echo 'not applicable if non-SIGSEGV is sent in the case to be told from
stack overflow' >&2
+ # E2K (elbrus) systems send SIGILL on an access to an invalid
address.
+ # So, this test is skipped:
+ exit 77
+ ;;
0) (exit 1); exit 1 ;;
esac
if grep 'program error' t-c-stack2.tmp >/dev/null ; then
--
2.17.1
