From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 2D6F538515D7; Tue, 12 Sep 2023 19:06:19 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2D6F538515D7 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1694545579; bh=TSShvYgLTIEReXUren4Of4NjiFA/in4Bp9Lz+O4THNA=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=aCqY9enPcUIfHV4kdGh/1udsCMAtFnPn2uZZpyRKmwBQk6u7OSMUq2coOiieZ+6Bu wRMKsqJlosu0d1ksgBiDeP5o16ZnXjmBD/uLcqXv6CTQL1DhyYXSYxYrje37imtsGg SzGJLlFB9Q0cP71oEXRywvFZF4U60Wridh65vvsY= From: "egallager at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/111390] 'make check-compile' target is not useful Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2023 19:06:18 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: egallager at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: see_also cc Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111390 Eric Gallager changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- See Also| |https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzill | |a/show_bug.cgi?id=3D103324 CC| |egallager at gcc dot gnu.o= rg --- Comment #1 from Eric Gallager --- kinda related: bug 103324 (In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0) > If we want to do compilation-only testing, I think it would be better to > modify the dejagnu procs so that "dg-do run" tests are treated as "dg-do > compile". Yes, I think this solution would be preferable to ripping it out entirely. Also, it would be useful if such a target were available tree-wide, rather = than just for libstdc++.=