This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch] make check-c++ bits
- To: DJ Delorie <dj at redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: [patch] make check-c++ bits
- From: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 19:27:33 -0800 (PST)
- cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, aoliva at redhat dot com, gdr at codesourcery dot com
> We should be careful, adding language-centric targets like this, to
> indicate languages (c, c++, java, f77) and compilers (gcc, g++, gcj,
> g77) appropriately and correctly. "check-g++" should check the
> compiler, but "check-c++" should check all appropriate c++-related
> things, regardless of which Makefile you're using. That doesn't mean
> that all those targets must be there, but if they *are* there, we
> should be careful to choose the appropriate names according to whether
> the target is compiler-specific, or language-specific.
...that makes at least two of us. I really think these language-specific
things are the right way to go.......
> I'm wondering if we should have a top-level "check-languages" that
> checks all gcc-based compilers and all their runtimes, for people who
> have builds that include things besides gcc (like gdb, cygwin, etc).
Perhaps they can get added on an as-desired basis?
> + (cd gcc; $(MAKE) $(GCC_FLAGS_TO_PASS) check-c++; cd $(r)); \
> You shouldn't need the "cd $(r)" here. The outer () forces a
> subshell, which isolates the first cd from the main shell. Unless you
> know something the rest of us don't know. ;-)
Okay. My mistake. I'll remove that bit and check it in.