On 2019-03-12 7:05 p.m., Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 12/03/19 23:01 +0000, Joseph Myers wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2019, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
>>
>>> +proc add_options_for_libatomic { flags } {
>>> + if { [istarget hppa*-*-hpux*] } {
>>> + return "$flags -L../../libatomic/.libs -latomic"
>>> + } option.
>>
>> It's generally inappropriate to hardcode such ../../libatomic/.libs paths
>> without making sure it's for build-tree rather than installed testing (for
>> installed testing, -latomic can be found without any -L option and it's
>> the board file's responsibility to set LD_LIBRARY_PATH if necessary).
>
> I was going to say something about that, but then saw we already do it
> for libgomp/.libs as well. Two wrongs now though ..
I just installed the change before I saw Joseph's comment. I don't believe
-latomic can be
found without a -L option in the libstdc++ testsuite. That's why it's done for
libgomp.
However, it's not needed for c, c++, fortran testsuites. They also setup
LD_LIBRARY_PATH
for testing in build tree. I've never had to use a board file to get this
right.
--
John David Anglin dave.ang...@bell.net
