Analysis of g++.dg/bprob/g++-bprob-1.C multilib failures

[Janis Johnson]

On Mon, Dec 30, 2002 at 10:10:40AM -0500, R. Kelley Cook wrote:
>  >Though it doesn't say *which* file g++ can't find, I'm suspecting that
>  >the profiling intermediate files are removed in the first multilib
>  >pass cleanup phase and not re-generated in the second and later
>  >multilib passes.
>  >
>  >Since I don't really understand the bprob tests, I tried checking to
>  >see why the g77 and gcc bprob tests work with multilibs and the g++
>  >ones don't.  The only real difference I can see between on one hand
>  >g77.dg/bprob/bprob.exp & gcc.misc-tests/bprob.exp versus
>  >g++.dg/bprob/bprob.exp is that the working languages have this extra
>  >line
> 
> Kaveh,
> 
> I think I might know why.
> 
> I have a long open PR other/6480 regarding behavior that was very similar.
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&pr=6480
> 
> Basically, the g++ and gcc testsuites parse their additionaloptions in 
> different order.  And I am guessing that specifying a multilib is an 
> additional option
> 
> g++ does it the correct way, IMO. Specifically, that an individual test 
> can override any global options.
> 
> I provided a one line patch with the PR, try it.  If it works great. 
> More likely, if both gcc and g++ now exhibit the queerness that you 
> noticed then you at least also have your answer: lib/profopt.exp (which 
> is called by the bprob expect files) then already takes into account the 
> backwards syntax of gcc.exp and attempted to correct it ahead of time.
> 
> It would be nice if this patch was reviewed.  The various testsuites do 
> behave differently with --tool-opts specified.

The problem Kaveh ran into was different.  Your patch makes sense to me
but I haven't yet tried it.

Janis