Reading Lewis' patch and the original patch a bit more carefully I think
the patch I suggested should have used `additional_flags` instead of
`ldflags`.
Outside of that -- would any maintainer on Cc be OK with one of our
patches going in?
On 1/3/25 22:05, Lewis Hyatt wrote:
External email: Use caution opening links or attachments
On Fri, Jan 03, 2025 at 05:48:12PM +0000, Matthew Malcomson wrote:
On 1/3/25 17:14, Joseph Myers wrote:
Does this patch cover everything dealt with by
<https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-patches/2024-December/672242.html>
([PATCH] testsuite: libitm: Remove build directory path from test names),
or would some separate fix for that issue still be needed in the presence
of this patch?
Ah -- I didn't notice that patch.
It looks like both do essentially the same thing.
That one identifies the use of the c++ test runner by checking for the
presence of the `lang_test_file` variable, and in that case
`libitm_target_compile` adds the options, while in my patch the c++ test
runner adds options to `ALWAYS_CFLAGS` which `libitm_target_compile` uses
directly.
Agreed, they both have the same effect. Mine just added -B symmetrically in
the same way that -L is already added. I guess that also underscores the
question of whether -B is even needed? I am not aware of any reason why it
should be needed when -L is already specified with the same directory, but
would be curious to know what I may be missing.
In any case, seems we may as well go with Matthew's latest version if it is
acked, since it keeps the changes isolated just to c++.exp and doesn't need
to touch libitm.exp?
-Lewis
