This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: [patch ping] libstdc++ testsuite cxxflags
- From: Cesar Philippidis <cesar at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>, Sandra Loosemore <sandra at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely dot gcc at gmail dot com>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 20 May 2014 12:38:40 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch ping] libstdc++ testsuite cxxflags
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5376AA41 dot 8020309 at codesourcery dot com> <CAH6eHdTTp-Aifs9WLEEsHeEbJPgJFSNEtf2FoTuEOqt5wztHiA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CAH6eHdTG3+0OXCGVC0UtWCrGYBC7a4u0YaEDAsbyMpVfc=L7-Q at mail dot gmail dot com> <537A7022 dot 4090006 at codesourcery dot com> <20140520091125 dot GN29145 at redhat dot com>
On 05/20/2014 02:11 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 19/05/14 14:57 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>> On 05/17/2014 04:07 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>> On 17 May 2014 10:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>>> On 17 May 2014 01:16, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
>>>>> It appears that this patch from last fall never got reviewed.
>>>>> Can someone take a look? I'll commit the patch on Cesar's behalf
>>>>> if it's
>>>> Libstdc++ patches need to go to the libstdc++ list, which this did, in
>>>> a separate mail that broke the threading:
>>>> Then archives's inability to thread betweem months broke it again:
>>>> I approved it then withdrew that approval:
>>>> then the patch got revised:
>>>> I'll have to refresh my memory about it.
>> Whoops, I totally missed that there was already a separate thread on
>> the libstdc++ mailing list only. My bad. :-(
>>> I think I'm happiest with the second version of the patch, in
>>> It does mean a change that might affect people using CXXFLAGS when
>>> running the tests, so we might want to update
>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/test.html where it says
>>> "Or, just run the testsuites with CXXFLAGS set to -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG or
>> I came up with the attached patch for the wording change. I'm having
>> trouble regenerating the HTML version of the manual, though; it looks
>> like I have a different version of the DocBook stylesheets around that
>> are introducing lots of extraneous changes, and I'm not sure what the
>> "right" version is. :-S Any suggestions?
> You always get hundreds of changes, DocBook generates unique numeric
> id attributes, which are different every run. Don't worr yabout the
> docs, I can sort them out. If you and Cesar are happy with the patch
> in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-11/msg00114.html then please
> go ahead and commit that version, thanks.
Looking back at my notes, this patch addresses the libstdc++ atomics
test failures when using a custom site.exp. Without the -O2 flag, those
tests would fail to link because of the dependency on libatomic.
I'm happy with the second patch. Sandra please commit it.