On Fri, 14 Feb 2020, Mike Stump wrote:
> > 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>
>
> I didn't see any clash with expectations. They expect in the build tree
> testing to work, they expect install testing to work. I expect both,
> you expect both; I just don't think we differ on this. Where I think
> things went wrong is there is a change to their testing environment that
> you didn't fully account for in your patch. You didn't intend to break
> it, but there is just a little more work to be done to not break it,
> that's all.
>
> So, let step back. You want to change the options to the compiler,
> right?
>
> So, imagine for a second that site.exp has those options, then you can
> reliably grab them from that file and use them, no? If so, then all you
> have to do is put the content you need into site.exp, and then once it
> is there, you can then merely add a little code to grab them and add
> them, right?
>
> So, pick testsuite that fails, and that you broke. Back out the last
> patch, and instead, in the Makefile (or whatever generate the Makefile,
> look for the site.exp rule, and instead pilfer the data you want create
> it up into an existing variable, if relevant to it, and if not, create a
> new one.
>
> For some of these files we see they come from automake, so we google,
> then we find:
>
> http://gnu-automake.7480.n7.nabble.com/Automake-and-dejagnu-s-site-exp-file-td4414.html
>
> and presto, a 5 line solution to an existing problem.
>
> Is that kinda sort similar to what you want to do? Now that's a 12 year
> old answer the the problem, I didn't check to see if there is a newer
> answer. It looks reasonable enough.
Huh? That's exactly what v1 did, it added:
set GCC_UNDER_TEST {@CC@}
(with @CC@ substituted by `configure' of course) to `site.exp' produced by
`make check' (as constructed by `automake'[1]). That caused Julian and
Chung-Lin trouble.
So I don't really know what you are talking about or trying to suggest
me; AFAICT your idea was already tried and failed (though Chung-Lin may
provide further input I asked for that may help).
References:
[1] <https://www.gnu.org/software/automake/manual/html_node/DejaGnu-Tests.html>
Maciej
