On 10/8/2023 11:44 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > On 10.08.23 15:28, Joel Sherrill wrote: >> It looks ok but why? It isn't built if not supported. It isn't a lot of code >> even if it is built. And it will not be in a user executable if they don't >> call it. >> >> I just don't see the point. > > Yes, good question. Actually, I wanted to add an option to disable the libdl > tests as a workaround for > > http://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4941 > > and the use of vendor tools or clang. I will make this more explicit with a > BUILD_LIBDL_TESTS option.
Please do not add a work around. Thanks Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel