Regression for csl-arm on arm-none-elf

[Mark Mitchell]

Autocrasher wrote:

>30 new FAIL's (101 total) have appeared for arm-none-elf:
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/assign1.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/fvisibility-inlines-hidden.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/fvisibility-override1.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/fvisibility-override2.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/fvisibility.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/memfuncts.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/new1.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/noPLT.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/pragma-override1.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/pragma-override2.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/pragma.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/staticmemfuncts.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/virtual.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/visibility-1.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/visibility-2.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/visibility-3.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/visibility-4.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/visibility-5.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/visibility-6.C
>    g++.sum g++.dg/ext/visibility/visibility-7.C
>    gcc.sum gcc.dg/visibility-1.c
>    gcc.sum gcc.dg/visibility-2.c
>    gcc.sum gcc.dg/visibility-3.c
>    gcc.sum gcc.dg/visibility-4.c
>    gcc.sum gcc.dg/visibility-5.c
>    gcc.sum gcc.dg/visibility-6.c
>    gcc.sum gcc.dg/visibility-7.c
>    gcc.sum gcc.dg/visibility-8.c
>    gcc.sum gcc.dg/visibility-9.c
>    gcc.sum gcc.dg/visibility-a.c
>These tests passed the last time they were ran.
>
Paul, Phil --

Should we configure this for arm-none-eabi instead of arm-none-elf?  Or 
do both?

Also, for arm-none-elf,  do we have the arm-none-elf binutils in the 
PATH when we're running tests?  I've discovered that DejaGNU wants to be 
able to run "objdump" directly; if it can't, these tests might fail 
spuriously.

Thanks,

-- 
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304
mark@codesourcery.com