This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES

From: Jie Zhang <jzhang918 at gmail dot com>
To: Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>, Jie Zhang <jzhang918 at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:11:41 +0800
Subject: Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
References: <46EFBCC1.6070200@gmail.com> <46EFC383.7020503@t-online.de> <46EFC9E9.7090201@gmail.com> <46EFCEF9.3060304@t-online.de> <46EFCF7A.2080704@gmail.com> <46EFD236.6080907@t-online.de> <20070918133330.GA4693@caradoc.them.org>

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

On Tue, Sep 18, 2007 at 03:27:18PM +0200, Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
Bernd Schmidt wrote:
Jie Zhang wrote:
But by design if gcc_no_link = no, link tests should be avoided.
??? I would have thought gcc_no_link = yes means link tests are avoided.

Oops, I meant gcc_no_link = yes.
Stupid double negatives. Okay, so then your problem is that gcc_no_link=yes. Find out why it's setting that.
It always does for newlib.  The libtool tests are relatively recent
(from some recent autotools upgrade).

Yes, It was added by

http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2007-05/msg00247.html

Jie

References:
- Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
  - From: Jie Zhang
- Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
  - From: Bernd Schmidt
- Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
  - From: Jie Zhang
- Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
  - From: Bernd Schmidt
- Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
  - From: Jie Zhang
- Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
  - From: Bernd Schmidt
- Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

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