This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [RFA: and RFC:] run_dump_test in ld: extensions and globalityof testsuite functions.
- To: Nick Clifton <nickc at cambridge dot redhat dot com>
- Subject: Re: [RFA: and RFC:] run_dump_test in ld: extensions and globalityof testsuite functions.
- From: Hans-Peter Nilsson <hp at bitrange dot com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2001 23:21:01 -0400 (EDT)
- cc: <dj at redhat dot com>, <binutils at sources dot redhat dot com>
On 13 Jun 2001, Nick Clifton wrote:
> > > Couldn't "-B../" be used instead ?
> >
> > No, it's for finding gas, and it wouldn't find ld-new anyway,
s%wouldn't find ld-new%doesn't look for ld-new using -B%
(It's *just* for finding gas; just so nobody's confused.)
> > when looking for ld. Perhaps I should expand on the "gcc
> > -B-reason". I'm lazy, so I'll just copy what I found in
> > ld/testsuite/config/default.exp hoping it will clarify:
...
> > > I like the idea of commoning up these functions. How about
> > > dejagnu/lib as the repository though ?
> >
> > We'd need to include the dejagnu directory in binutils then,
> > or at least dejagnu/lib. Putting it in libiberty seems better,
>
> Fair enough. I was just not sure if there was a precedent for putting
> expect scripts into libiberty.
It's the most common factor I could think of. Or perhaps a
bfd/testsuite/lib? Bfd doesn't have a testsuite by itself,
though, so I thought it would be odd.
brgds, H-P