Re: [PATCH] libstdc++ testsuite cxxflags

[Cesar Philippidis <cesar at codesourcery dot com>]

On 11/20/13, 1:46 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> 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?

I looked at it again, and it seems to be OK to leave it in there.

> For remote targets, if CXXFLAGS is set in the env can -g still end up missing?

No, but CXXFLAGS isn't necessarily set in the env. Specifically, if you
run the testsuite without using the makefile, the CXXFLAGS may not be set.

I revised the patch to preserve @EXTRA_CXX_FLAGS@. I also append the
'-g' flag with '-O2', since the '-g' isn't as important in the testsuite
as '-O2'.

Is this patch OK? Is so, please commit it because I do not have an svn
account.

Thanks,
Cesar

Attachment: libstdcxx_testsuite-b.diff
Description: Text document