Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES

[Rask Ingemann Lambertsen]

On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 11:27:31AM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote:
> OK, I'm not doing a good job of staying out of this discussion as
> promised, but I was hoping someone else would raise this point...
> 
> My main concern with applying this patch in its current state is that,
> while we have (intentionally) only been talking about *-elf so far,
> newlib != *-elf.  Cygwin is also an important newlib user, and I don't
> remember anyone explicitly mentioning it so far in this thread.

   What is a good way of detecting the bare-metal targets? *-elf*, *-eabi*?

> While I'm here, I noticed a very minor nit.  The patch has:
> 
> > +ac_cv_func_fork=${ac_cv_func_fork=no}
> > +ac_cv_func_fork=${ac_cv_func_fork=yes}

   Well spotted. The nit is real enough. What happens is this (with
unpatched mainline):

Checking multilib configuration for libgfortran...
mkdir -p -- v850-unknown-elf/libgfortran
Configuring in v850-unknown-elf/libgfortran
configure: creating cache ./config.cache
[...]
checking for access... yes
checking for fork... yes
checking for execl... no
[...]

   The same tests with fr30-unknown-elf:

checking for access... no
checking for fork... no
checking for execl... no

   Other examples: gettimeofday, link, mkstemp, pipe, stat, time and wait.

-- 
Rask Ingemann Lambertsen
Danish law requires addresses in e-mail to be logged and stored for a year