From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27663 invoked by alias); 6 Apr 2002 02:15:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 27649 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2002 02:15:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Apr 2002 02:15:19 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (notinuse.cygnus.com [205.180.231.12]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA11872; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 18:14:54 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3CAE576C.1AFB4937@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 18:15:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/RFC] Multilibs and gdb.asm References: <15534.5336.562102.896601@localhost.redhat.com> <20020405164258.A30688@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00210.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2002 at 04:19:20PM -0500, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > > > In gdb.asm/asm-source.exp, the testsuite passes multilib options to > > the assembler according to the compiler syntax. > > Obviously this doesn't work, as already noted by Nick Clifton in: > > > > http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-01/msg00282.html > > > > A solution wasn't reached at the time. > > > > I found it useful to just bail out of the test if some multilibs were > > detected. At least it reduced the noise in the testsuite results. > > > > Is this too drastic? > > I've got a silly suggestion. Is there any reason not to assemble by > invoking the compiler, for this test? Let it do all the multilib > footwork. Oh, that would be a problem for targets where there is no compiler...