On 05/21/2013 12:28 PM, Diego Novillo wrote:
> This is OK for google branches. I'm tempted to say it's fine for trunk, but I
> would like to know what maintainers think. Richard?
Looks plausible.
Irritating that we need another config file, rather than simply an environment
variable passed down
On 2013-05-21 15:00 , Simon Baldwin wrote:
Ping. Also, any thoughts on suitability of this (or otherwise) for trunk?
On 1 May 2013 16:04, Simon Baldwin wrote:
Fix libatomic testsuite for when GCC_UNDER_TEST is not plain xgcc.
Libatomic tests fail if GCC_UNDER_TEST is set to something other
Ping. Also, any thoughts on suitability of this (or otherwise) for trunk?
On 1 May 2013 16:04, Simon Baldwin wrote:
> Fix libatomic testsuite for when GCC_UNDER_TEST is not plain xgcc.
>
> Libatomic tests fail if GCC_UNDER_TEST is set to something other than a plain
> xgcc invocation (for examp
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Simon Baldwin wrote:
> Fix libatomic testsuite for when GCC_UNDER_TEST is not plain xgcc.
>
> Libatomic tests fail if GCC_UNDER_TEST is set to something other than a plain
> xgcc invocation (for example, when $CC requires a special -sysroot). Fix
> testsuite files
Fix libatomic testsuite for when GCC_UNDER_TEST is not plain xgcc.
Libatomic tests fail if GCC_UNDER_TEST is set to something other than a plain
xgcc invocation (for example, when $CC requires a special -sysroot). Fix
testsuite files so that it uniformly uses CC_UNDER_TEST rather than any result
