This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
- From: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>
- Cc: Jie Zhang <jzhang918 at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, rdsandiford at googlemail dot com
- Date: Thu, 15 May 2008 16:02:32 -0700
- Subject: Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
- References: <46EFBCC1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <46EFC383.email@example.com> <46EFC9E9.firstname.lastname@example.org> <46EFCEF9.email@example.com> <46EFCF7A.firstname.lastname@example.org> <46EFD236.email@example.com> <46EFDA4D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <474C0C52.email@example.com> <474C8FA4.firstname.lastname@example.org> <474C95BA.email@example.com> <474C96C1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <474C98AA.email@example.com> <474C9A65.firstname.lastname@example.org> <474C9B33.email@example.com> <474C9CBD.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <474D943C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <482CA836.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <482CBFD9.firstname.lastname@example.org>
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
I've now checked in the libstdc++-v3 patch, which is a reasonably
obvious bug fix. I've never had an opinion on whether other targets
ought to fail link tests, hence I'm not really interested in pursuing
the other part of the patch. I'll leave that to you or Mark, if you wish.
I think the libstdc++-v3 change is indeed pretty obvious.
I still think that reverting Rask's patch is the right thing to do. I
think the fundamental assumption that you can use the simulator target
as way to probe the target is just wrong for bare-metal systems; what's
available in simulation and might what might be available otherwise need
not be the same. We're making assumptions about the target system when
the only reliable way to do that is to have the person configuring the
compiler tell us. I think that we sometimes try too hard to make
configury smart; essentially, we're preferring wrong answers to making
the user do some work.
But, I also don't have a compelling reason to push forward on that
myself at this point.
(650) 331-3385 x713