> Sorry for these stupid errors, I should really have read that one
> through one more time before posting. Attached is an updated version
> with both errors corrected. OK?
That doesn't work for me on Solaris when there is no static glibc (e.g. 64-bit
mode on Solaris 9):
check_effective_target_s
On Wed, Nov 02, 2005 at 11:11:42PM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> 2005-11-02 Francois-Xavier Coudert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> PR libfortran/22298
> * gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp
> (check_effective_target_static_libgfortran): New
> static_libgfortran effective target.
How does the test in check_effective_target_static_libgfortran check for
use of static libgfortran? Shouldn't it pass -static or something? If
it's really doing it already by a means that is not apprarent, please
add a comment.
That proc has a comment that was copied from another proc, please f
On Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 12:24:56PM +0100, FX Coudert wrote:
> I added a test for the testsuite, conditionnal on a new effective
> target. Could someone OK this part?
How does the test in check_effective_target_static_libgfortran check for
use of static libgfortran? Shouldn't it pass -static or s
:ADDPATCH testsuite:
Attached patch fixes a bug (PR libfortran/22298) where the libgfortran
constructor function wasn't linked in when libgfortran was statically
linked. The patch itself is straightforward and well commented, and it
could go under the "obvious rule".
I added a test for the t
