This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [PATCH C++/testsuite] Remove pchtest check objects and compile with current tool
- From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com>
- To: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, Janis Johnson <janis_johnson at mentor dot com>, Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 09:47:59 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH C++/testsuite] Remove pchtest check objects and compile with current tool
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131030095618 dot GB22154 at nbbrfq dot cc dot univie dot ac dot at> <C08D96A0-F9FD-4820-ABBA-6F2A4DA9B900 at comcast dot net> <CAC1BbcT5=uFQhfXgGcWCaYjmzjT8W5j0MAdjQtv0iQqwFTF0mg at mail dot gmail dot com> <C4F14FCB-5EDB-481F-BBA7-1A508046A532 at comcast dot net>
On 30 October 2013 23:22, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 30 October 2013 22:47, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Was there a significant purpose for the added C++ comment? If not, can you remove that? If so, can you explain?
>>
>> grep -A9 "CONTENTS is" gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
>> # Assume by default that CONTENTS is C code.
>> # Otherwise, code should contain:
>> # "// C++" for c++,
>> # "! Fortran" for Fortran code,
>> # "/* ObjC", for ObjC
>> # "// ObjC++" for ObjC++
>> # and "// Go" for Go
>> # If the tool is ObjC/ObjC++ then we overide the extension to .m/.mm to
>> # allow for ObjC/ObjC++ specific flags.
>> proc check_compile {basename type contents args} {
>
> Ah, but this is why I asked for a significant purpose? The language of the file selects the options (flags) allowed. The language is set in your code. I think it was part of trying different ways to fix it, but, it turned out to be neither necessary or sufficient in the end.
Not sure about any significant purpose, no.
I found it odd that the check did not attempt to obtain a result
without knowingly provoking an odd warning, hence these chk_ stuff.
So, what do you want me to do? I want to delete the test objects and i
don't really care if remove-build-file overdoes it or not..
pch usually fails for my crosses anyway so is disabled in the first place :P
Are you saying that these CONTENT stuff should be nuked altogether
and/or the pchtest stanza be kept as is and/or the stanza be cut to
only fire for tool==g++ ?
thanks,