This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFC] Do we care about binary compatibility of code produced by cross-compilers?


Paolo Bonzini wrote:
... actually, if all the checks presently doing link-tests consistently
get a parameter allowing to disable the test completely and also to set
its value, I'm thinking with proper documentation nobody could be
*really* unhappy with the change... Do you agree?
The cache file is a way to set the value of a test.
Sorry, but I'm not sure to understand how your sentence relates to my question. Can you expand a bit about that? To be more clear on my side, besides the first two or three sentences of my previous message, I left the issue about running GCC_CHECK_TLS alone. In the sentences above I was just describing the effect of moving checks possibly doing link-tests to the set of tests run unconditionally, thus even when non-native,
*and* at the same time making sure that all those tests can be run with three possible arguments (the usual ones): yes, no, auto.


Is that a kind of setup which we would find better than the current one, with tests possibly doing link-tests run only when native and hard-coding for crosses? Any objections / willingness to help to the idea of changing GCC_CHECK_UNWIND_GETIPINFO and AM_ICONV (-> GCC_ICONV) consistently with above?

Paolo.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]