On 30 October 2013 23:22, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 30 October 2013 22:47, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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} {
>
> Ah, but this is why I asked for a significant purpose? The language of the
> file selects the options (flags) allowed. The language is set in your code.
> I think it was part of trying different ways to fix it, but, it turned out to
> be neither necessary or sufficient in the end.
Not sure about any significant purpose, no.
I found it odd that the check did not attempt to obtain a result
without knowingly provoking an odd warning, hence these chk_ stuff.
So, what do you want me to do? I want to delete the test objects and i
don't really care if remove-build-file overdoes it or not..
pch usually fails for my crosses anyway so is disabled in the first place :P
Are you saying that these CONTENT stuff should be nuked altogether
and/or the pchtest stanza be kept as is and/or the stanza be cut to
only fire for tool==g++ ?
thanks,
