From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23979 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2007 15:18:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 23945 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Dec 2007 15:18:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from pfepb.post.tele.dk (HELO pfepb.post.tele.dk) (195.41.46.236) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:18:05 +0000 Received: from x1-6-00-0f-9f-c6-3e-90 (x1-6-00-0f-9f-c6-3e-90.k75.webspeed.dk [80.197.1.215]) by pfepb.post.tele.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id A562EA50021; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:18:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from x1-6-00-0f-9f-c6-3e-90 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by x1-6-00-0f-9f-c6-3e-90 (8.14.0/8.14.0) with ESMTP id lB7FI07u009105; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:18:00 +0100 Received: (from rask@localhost) by x1-6-00-0f-9f-c6-3e-90 (8.14.0/8.14.0/Submit) id lB7FHxRP009104; Fri, 7 Dec 2007 16:17:59 +0100 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2007 15:18:00 -0000 From: Rask Ingemann Lambertsen To: Mark Mitchell , GCC Patches , fortran@gcc.gnu.org, java-patches@gcc.gnu.org, rsandifo@nildram.co.uk Subject: Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES Message-ID: <20071207151759.GQ17368@sygehus.dk> References: <87d4tqu4nv.fsf@firetop.home> <20071201115252.GS17368@sygehus.dk> <20071201120251.GT17368@sygehus.dk> <20071201223447.GU17368@sygehus.dk> <47531F54.6010802@codesourcery.com> <20071205172224.GM17368@sygehus.dk> <47574456.1070108@codesourcery.com> <20071206175819.GO17368@sygehus.dk> <87abomzqvw.fsf@firetop.home> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87abomzqvw.fsf@firetop.home> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.14 (2007-02-12) Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-12/txt/msg00336.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 11:27:31AM +0000, Richard Sandiford wrote: > OK, I'm not doing a good job of staying out of this discussion as > promised, but I was hoping someone else would raise this point... > > My main concern with applying this patch in its current state is that, > while we have (intentionally) only been talking about *-elf so far, > newlib != *-elf. Cygwin is also an important newlib user, and I don't > remember anyone explicitly mentioning it so far in this thread. What is a good way of detecting the bare-metal targets? *-elf*, *-eabi*? > While I'm here, I noticed a very minor nit. The patch has: > > > +ac_cv_func_fork=${ac_cv_func_fork=no} > > +ac_cv_func_fork=${ac_cv_func_fork=yes} Well spotted. The nit is real enough. What happens is this (with unpatched mainline): Checking multilib configuration for libgfortran... mkdir -p -- v850-unknown-elf/libgfortran Configuring in v850-unknown-elf/libgfortran configure: creating cache ./config.cache [...] checking for access... yes checking for fork... yes checking for execl... no [...] The same tests with fr30-unknown-elf: checking for access... no checking for fork... no checking for execl... no Other examples: gettimeofday, link, mkstemp, pipe, stat, time and wait. -- Rask Ingemann Lambertsen Danish law requires addresses in e-mail to be logged and stored for a year