This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
- From: Richard Sandiford <rsandifo at nildram dot co dot uk>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen <rask at sygehus dot dk>, Bernd Schmidt <bernds_cb1 at t-online dot de>, Jie Zhang <jzhang918 at gmail dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, hp at gcc dot gnu dot org, dj at redhat dot com
- Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2007 09:55:19 +0000
- Subject: Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES
- References: <474C8FA4.firstname.lastname@example.org> <474C95BA.email@example.com> <474C96C1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <474C98AA.email@example.com> <474C9A65.firstname.lastname@example.org> <474C9B33.email@example.com> <474C9CBD.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <474D943C.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20071130022132.GL17368@sygehus.dk> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <47505D76.email@example.com>
Mark Mitchell <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Richard Sandiford wrote:
>> 2006-04-18 DJ Delorie <email@example.com>
>> * configure.in (m32c): Build libstdc++-v3. Pass flags to
>> reference libgloss so that libssp can be built in a combined
>> * configure: Regenerate.
>> Mark, DJ? Do you agree it's OK to drop that hunk?
> I'm not quite sure if you're asking for agreement to leave it in our
> sourcebase, or to remove it therefrom, so, unambiguously:
Yeah, sorry about that. And...
> I would prefer to revert DJ's change, for the same reason as the other
> changes under discussion, so that we're consistent across architectures.
...I was indeed asking whether I could remove that hunk from the source,
rather than restoring it to its original position.
Anyway, given that there have been objections to the patch generally,
I realise that the pre-approval is void.