[PATCH C++/testsuite] Remove pchtest check objects and compile with current tool

[Bernhard Reutner-Fischer]

On 30 October 2013 22:47, Mike Stump <mikestump@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2013, at 2:56 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com> wrote:
>> -     set result [check_compile pchtest object "int i;" "-x c-header"]
>> +     set result [check_compile pchtest object "$chk_type" "$chk_lang"]
>
> the patch uses chk_type, but, I can't find where it is being set?

hmz yea, that should read $chk_content
>
> 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} {
>
> Last question I have is the remove-build-file primitive.  I'm wondering on a canadian cross, are the files left over on the build machine, the host machine or both the build machine and the host machine?

I don't really remember, i didn't run canadian cross tests on remote
boxes since ages, TBH.

> I see people use remote_file build delete …, file_on_host delete and remove-build-file.  Some folks even use the plain file delete.  I'd hate to guess which one you need, it hurts my brain.  I think remove-build-file is safe; just don't know if it is best.

remove-build-file certainly wipes it from everywhere so seems the safe bet.
But yes, for this specific pchtest.o's one could refine the delete to
the appropriate build or host. I would think that using plain delete
is wrong everywhere though.

> Anyone else want to weigh in?