http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49741
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49741
--- Comment #7 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-15
21:30:00 UTC ---
Author: jason
Date: Fri Jul 15 21:29:57 2011
New Revision: 176332
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=176332
Log:
PR testsuite/49741
gcc/
* Makefile.in ($(la
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49741
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth 2011-07-15
10:55:21 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > Created attachment 24772 [details]
> > Patch to use --zadditional_options instead of --tool_opts
> >
> > Does this work better?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49741
--- Comment #5 from Jack Howarth 2011-07-15
05:31:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> Created attachment 24772 [details]
> Patch to use --zadditional_options instead of --tool_opts
>
> Does this work better?
Yes. This eliminates the failures
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49741
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49741
--- Comment #3 from Jason Merrill 2011-07-15
03:44:30 UTC ---
Hmm, it seems that --tool_opts confuses the multilib support. In g++.exp we
have
if [info exists TOOL_OPTIONS] {
lappend ALWAYS_CXXFLAGS "additional_flags=[g++_in
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49741
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2011-07-15
02:52:39 UTC ---
Comparing the beginning of the normal make-g++ from...
make -k check-c++ RUNTESTFLAGS="--target_board=unix'{-m32,-m64}'"
...which doesn't show these failures, I see...
Using
/sw/src
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49741
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
