On 30 October 2013 23:22, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Oct 30, 2013, at 3:14 PM, Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot....@gmail.com> > wrote: >> On 30 October 2013 22:47, Mike Stump <mikest...@comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>> Was there a significant purpose for the added C++ comment? If not, can you >>> remove that? If so, can you explain? >> >> grep -A9 "CONTENTS is" gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp >> # Assume by default that CONTENTS is C code. >> # Otherwise, code should contain: >> # "// C++" for c++, >> # "! Fortran" for Fortran code, >> # "/* ObjC", for ObjC >> # "// ObjC++" for ObjC++ >> # and "// Go" for Go >> # If the tool is ObjC/ObjC++ then we overide the extension to .m/.mm to >> # allow for ObjC/ObjC++ specific flags. >> proc check_compile {basename type contents args} { > > Ah, but this is why I asked for a significant purpose? The language of the > file selects the options (flags) allowed. The language is set in your code. > I think it was part of trying different ways to fix it, but, it turned out to > be neither necessary or sufficient in the end.
Not sure about any significant purpose, no. I found it odd that the check did not attempt to obtain a result without knowingly provoking an odd warning, hence these chk_ stuff. So, what do you want me to do? I want to delete the test objects and i don't really care if remove-build-file overdoes it or not.. pch usually fails for my crosses anyway so is disabled in the first place :P Are you saying that these CONTENT stuff should be nuked altogether and/or the pchtest stanza be kept as is and/or the stanza be cut to only fire for tool==g++ ? thanks,