Hi Thomas, > Will you, Maciej, please test that this doesn't break your setting?
Umm, this was implemented for my Western Digital development environment, which I don't have access to anymore. I'll see what I can do, but it may be neither easy nor quick. It's been long ago and I don't have a setup with multilibs enabled anymore. And neither I remember the thorough problem analysis I went through that has led me to the conclusions. I've come across my note, in a reply to Chung-Lin's concerns, about using libgomp.exp as a standalone test driver. Has this been verified somehow with your proposed change? Also I've skimmed over your change and this has caught my eye: > diff --git a/libgomp/configure.ac b/libgomp/configure.ac > index 1aad83a79da..49f7fb0dc82 100644 > --- a/libgomp/configure.ac > +++ b/libgomp/configure.ac > @@ -151,22 +151,11 @@ AC_SUBST(enable_static) > > AM_MAINTAINER_MODE > > -# We optionally test libgomp C++ support, and for that want to use the proper > -# C++ driver, 'g++' (or 'xg++' for build-tree testing). Given that build of > -# target libstdc++-v3 depends on target libgomp (see '../Makefile.def'), we > -# cannot make build of target libgomp depend on target libstdc++-v3: circular > -# dependency. We thus cannot instantiate 'AC_PROG_CXX' here: we'd get > -# '-funconfigured-libstdc++-v3' (see '../configure.ac'). Therefore, just > -# capture 'CXX', and we'll fix this up at 'make check' time (see > -# 'testsuite/lib/libgomp.exp:libgomp_init'). > -AC_SUBST(CXX) > - > # Create a spec file, so that compile/link tests don't fail > test -f libgfortran.spec || touch libgfortran.spec > FCFLAGS="$FCFLAGS -L." > > -# We need 'gfortran' to compile parts of the library, and test libgomp > Fortran > -# support. > +# We need gfortran to compile parts of the library > # We can't use AC_PROG_FC because it expects a fully working gfortran. -- missing full stop here, and I suggest to just make all this comment one paragraph (I can't imagine why it's not already, as the second sentence is clearly a continuation of the first one). I think a proper change description would be good too, as otherwise one may wonder why you have removed all the stuff above, and what this change is about anyway. Maciej
