On Fri, Mar 04, 2005 at 04:33:47PM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:35:54PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 10:29:45AM -0800, Janis Johnson wrote: > > > Is command line processing relevant for embedded targets? (I have no > > > idea.) Tests that pass options to the test program could be skipped > > > for embedded targets and for other kinds of testing where it isn't > > > reliable. The dg-program-options directive could warn when it's used > > > in an environment for which it's not supported. > > > > Sounds good to me, at least in theory. > > Any ideas on how the testsuite can decide for which targets it supports > command line arguments? Would it be reasonable to support them if the > target is not remote?
Well, remote_load already accepts arguments. And there's a 'noargs' in lots of board files. I don't know how accurate that is. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC
