Mike, Chung-Lin -- > > In the end I have decided to use the documented `--tool_exec' option to > > `runtest' to contain the change within the testsuite's Makefile and its > > `check' goal, which is inherent to the build tree and as such not supposed > > to be used in standalone testing, like with `contrib/test_installed'. > > > > I'm assuming Ian will take care of the 3/4 libgo change; OK to apply the > > remaining ones to the GCC repo? > > So, I really, really would like to avoid additional arguments like this. > I'd prefer that instead you push content into the built site.exp from > the Makefile, or something else like this, and then use that content as > you need to. This preserves the ability to go where you need to in the > tree, and do a runtest without specifying the option.
Thank you, Mike, for your input. That is what v1 did, but it seems to clash with some people's expectations, as discussed here: <https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2020-01/msg00057.html> So it looks like we have conflicting expectations for the desired arrangement, and of course the current situation isn't right either. Or, Chung-Lin, will you be happy if we just stay away from libgomp/testsuite/libgomp-test-support.exp and use say libgomp/testsuite/libgomp-test-support-extra.exp to supply the compiler setting (EXTRA_DEJAGNU_SITE_CONFIG supports an arbitrary number of site.exp fragments)? Any other proposals? Maciej
