This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH C++/testsuite] Remove pchtest check objects and compile with current tool
- From: Mike Stump <mikestump at comcast dot net>
- To: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep dot dot dot nop at gmail dot com>
- 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 18:15:49 -0700
- 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> <CAC1BbcSe0oufDykFaX+cRNyoqi3CN3XO=qjeA7uEZupAYUumGw at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Oct 31, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Ok, then it can be safely removed.
> So, what do you want me to do?
Remove the added comment… and repost…
Thanks.