This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ testsuite cxxflags
- From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>
- To: Cesar Philippidis <cesar at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "libstdc++" <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>, gcc-patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2013 21:46:28 +0000
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ testsuite cxxflags
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <526FD622 dot 5080503 at codesourcery dot com> <CAH6eHdTCOnUkaJtWTJizJV+-pkrzY+RtafC+zcgvEWWk8y98Dg at mail dot gmail dot com>
On 20 November 2013 21:44, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 29 October 2013 15:37, Cesar Philippidis wrote:
>> This patch addresses two issues with the libstdc++ testsuite:
>>
>> * duplicate "-g -O2" CXXFLAGS
>> * missing "-g -O2" for remote targets
>>
>> The duplicate "-g -O2" flags is a result of testsuite_flags.in using
>> build-time CXXFLAGS and proc libstdc++_init using the environmental
>> CXXFLAGS, which defaults to its build-time value. This patch prevents
>> testsuite_flags.in from using build-time CXXFLAGS.
>
>> Certain remote targets require a minimum optimization level -O1 in order
>> to pass several atomics built-in function tests. This patch ensures
>> cxxflags contains "-g -O2" at minimum when no other optimization flags
>> are specified. The testsuite used to set those flags prior to Benjamin's
>> patch to remove duplicate cxxflags here
>> <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2012-03/msg01572.html>.
>>
>> Is this OK for trunk? If so, please apply (I don't have commit rights).
>
> I think so ... although I'm not sure I've got my head round the
> effects in all cases!
Sorry, I didn't realise gmail thought Ctrl-Enter meant send. I meant
to ask a couple of questions about it ...
Is removing EXTRA_CXX_FLAGS necessary too?
For remote targets, if CXXFLAGS is set in the env can -g still end up missing?