Paul Brook wrote: > foo (argv[0]);
> I'd say it's a broken test then. It's a broken program, in full generality. DJ, you could fix this either by checking argc != 0 in the test, or by adding an effective-target condition that the test be run only on targets that pass argv[0]. I think the latter choice is pedantically more accurate -- as we will then not claim that the test passes on such targets. However, I think an even better fix is just to hard-code the string and make it volatile. Presumably, the use of argv[0] here is just to keep the compiler from optimizing the program away. So, I suggest doing something like: volatile char *x = "pr36321.exe"; and passing x to the function, instead of argv[0]. A patch along those lines is pre-approved. Thanks, -- Mark Mitchell CodeSourcery [EMAIL PROTECTED] (650) 331-3385 x713
