ping: [RFA:] testsuite infrastructure for options implied by dg-final methods

[Hans-Peter Nilsson <hans-peter.nilsson@axis.com>]

Ping.
Subject changed from '[RFA:] fix breakage with "Update testsuite
to run with slim LTO"' except it doesn't fix *all* breakage
introduced by that patch, only the one I observed and intended
to fix.

> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 04:29:20 +0200
> From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp@axis.com>

> > Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 00:19:32 +0200
> > From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
> > Yes, if we scan assembler, we likely want -fno-fat-lto-objects.
> 
> > > then IIUC you need to patch *all* torture tests that use
> > > scan-assembler and scan-assembler-not.  Alternatively, patch
> > > somewhere else, like not passing it if certain directives are
> > > used, like scan-assembler{,-not}.  And either way, is it safe to
> > > add that option always, not just when also passing "-flto" or
> > > something?
> > 
> > Hmm, some of assembler scans still works because they check for
> > presence of symbols we output anyway, but indeed, it would make more
> > sense to automatically imply -ffat-lto-object when scan-assembler
> > is used.  I am not sure if my dejagnu skill as on par here however.
> 
> Maybe you could make amends ;) by testing the following, which
> seems to work at least for dg-torture.exp and cris-elf/cris-sim,
> in which -ffat-lto-object is automatically added for each
> scan-assembler and scan-assembler-not test, extensible for other
> dg-final actions without polluting with checking LTO options and
> whatnot across the files.  I checked (and corrected) so it also
> works when !check_effective_target_lto by commenting out the
> setting in the second chunk.
> 
> gcc/testsuite:
> 
> 	* lib/gcc-dg.exp (gcc_force_conventional_output): New global
> 	variable, default empty, -ffat-lto-objects for effective_target_lto.
> 	(gcc-dg-test-1): Add options from dg-final methods.
> 	* lib/scanasm.exp (scan-assembler_required_options)
> 	(scan-assembler-not_required_options): New procs.

<http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2011-10/msg01917.html>
Ok to commit?

brgds, H-P