From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 485D238582A4; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 13:54:06 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 485D238582A4 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org; s=default; t=1706795646; bh=Nc/MQdMXXXLHg2y2QRxfI/+h3VFrPFrjEmtyWlB0cGg=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=mlqbS5Fr3M02++Yf+rqfjY1oPx8iSoUpEy6H8qW5UzqKGLbWPGNiLtOM4M8GOv6FZ K9oKjFN6MCVZHgRTdi2mwfTeL4Ak8um9C9H2gmu2MzriZ2Y2tCe3CvPlCY52eDhxhJ 8GG9dZ8aX5ih2wS76+8KSnSMXGwJpBTUzBlhQbJQ= From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/113684] Cross compiler without assembler and linker should assume that all assembler and linker features are available Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2024 13:54:06 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: target X-Bugzilla-Version: 14.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: internal-improvement X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW 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: 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=3D113684 Jakub Jelinek changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org --- Comment #5 from Jakub Jelinek --- I'm not sure it is a good idea to essentially say yes on all gas or linker tests without actually undestanding what those tests do. Because not all t= ests are supposed to pass on latest binutils, some are supposed to pass only on = some targets and not on others, some could be checking for older bugs, etc. Now, I believe for linker tests we for the in tree case we have hardcoded w= hat versions support certain features, so perhaps the no linker case could be handled similarly (and perhaps let the user even specific the ld date/versi= on to be assumed). Assembler tests are done always even with in-tree builds though, so I think we'd need to amend them since which version something works, on which target etc.=