From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10346 invoked by alias); 15 May 2008 23:03:04 -0000 Received: (qmail 10337 invoked by uid 22791); 15 May 2008 23:03:04 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 May 2008 23:02:46 +0000 Received: (qmail 5682 invoked from network); 15 May 2008 23:02:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?10.210.73.107?) (mitchell@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 15 May 2008 23:02:44 -0000 Message-ID: <482CC108.3000303@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 00:18:00 -0000 From: Mark Mitchell User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (Windows/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bernd Schmidt CC: Jie Zhang , GCC Patches , rdsandiford@googlemail.com Subject: Re: Link tests after GCC_NO_EXECUTABLES References: <46EFBCC1.6070200@gmail.com> <46EFC383.7020503@t-online.de> <46EFC9E9.7090201@gmail.com> <46EFCEF9.3060304@t-online.de> <46EFCF7A.2080704@gmail.com> <46EFD236.6080907@t-online.de> <46EFDA4D.3070006@gmail.com> <474C0C52.8050503@t-online.de> <474C8FA4.2040603@codesourcery.com> <474C95BA.1060807@t-online.de> <474C96C1.7010208@codesourcery.com> <474C98AA.50105@t-online.de> <474C9A65.2060902@codesourcery.com> <474C9B33.8060503@t-online.de> <474C9CBD.2070708@codesourcery.com> <87fxyqdc45.fsf@firetop.home> <474D943C.4030106@codesourcery.com> <877ik0aerh.fsf@firetop.home> <482CA836.6050801@t-online.de> <878wybdwu7.fsf@firetop.home> <482CBFD9.3050201@t-online.de> In-Reply-To: <482CBFD9.3050201@t-online.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00949.txt.bz2 Bernd Schmidt wrote: > I've now checked in the libstdc++-v3 patch, which is a reasonably > obvious bug fix. I've never had an opinion on whether other targets > ought to fail link tests, hence I'm not really interested in pursuing > the other part of the patch. I'll leave that to you or Mark, if you wish. I think the libstdc++-v3 change is indeed pretty obvious. I still think that reverting Rask's patch is the right thing to do. I think the fundamental assumption that you can use the simulator target as way to probe the target is just wrong for bare-metal systems; what's available in simulation and might what might be available otherwise need not be the same. We're making assumptions about the target system when the only reliable way to do that is to have the person configuring the compiler tell us. I think that we sometimes try too hard to make configury smart; essentially, we're preferring wrong answers to making the user do some work. But, I also don't have a compelling reason to push forward on that myself at this point. -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery mark@codesourcery.com (650) 331-3385 x713