On 05/20/2014 02:11 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 19/05/14 14:57 -0600, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >> On 05/17/2014 04:07 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>> On 17 May 2014 10:50, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>>> On 17 May 2014 01:16, Sandra Loosemore wrote: >>>>> It appears that this patch from last fall never got reviewed. >>>>> >>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2013-10/msg02340.html >>>>> >>>>> Can someone take a look? I'll commit the patch on Cesar's behalf >>>>> if it's >>>>> approved. >>>> >>>> Libstdc++ patches need to go to the libstdc++ list, which this did, in >>>> a separate mail that broke the threading: >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-10/msg00224.html >>>> Then archives's inability to thread betweem months broke it again: >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-11/msg00113.html >>>> >>>> I approved it then withdrew that approval: >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-11/msg00120.html >>>> then the patch got revised: >>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-11/msg00122.html >>>> >>>> I'll have to refresh my memory about it. >> >> Whoops, I totally missed that there was already a separate thread on >> the libstdc++ mailing list only. My bad. :-( >> >>> I think I'm happiest with the second version of the patch, in >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-11/msg00114.html >>> >>> It does mean a change that might affect people using CXXFLAGS when >>> running the tests, so we might want to update >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/test.html where it says >>> "Or, just run the testsuites with CXXFLAGS set to -D_GLIBCXX_DEBUG or >>> -D_GLIBCXX_PARALLEL." >> >> I came up with the attached patch for the wording change. I'm having >> trouble regenerating the HTML version of the manual, though; it looks >> like I have a different version of the DocBook stylesheets around that >> are introducing lots of extraneous changes, and I'm not sure what the >> "right" version is. :-S Any suggestions? > > You always get hundreds of changes, DocBook generates unique numeric > id attributes, which are different every run. Don't worr yabout the > docs, I can sort them out. If you and Cesar are happy with the patch > in https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-11/msg00114.html then please > go ahead and commit that version, thanks.
Looking back at my notes, this patch addresses the libstdc++ atomics test failures when using a custom site.exp. Without the -O2 flag, those tests would fail to link because of the dependency on libatomic. I'm happy with the second patch. Sandra please commit it. Thanks, Cesar
