On Oct 31, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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.
Ok, then it can be safely removed.
> So, what do you want me to do?
Remove the added comment… and repost…
Thanks.
