[gcc r15-1640] [libstdc++] [testsuite] no libatomic for vxworks

[Alexandre Oliva via Gcc-cvs]

https://gcc.gnu.org/g:eed2027843409bf3afd03053d95760bdacb8fbf6

commit r15-1640-geed2027843409bf3afd03053d95760bdacb8fbf6
Author: Alexandre Oliva <ol...@adacore.com>
Date:   Wed Jun 26 02:08:27 2024 -0300

    [libstdc++] [testsuite] no libatomic for vxworks
    
    libatomic hasn't been ported to vxworks.  Most of the stdatomic.h and
    <atomic> underlying requirements are provided by builtins and libgcc,
    and the vxworks libc already provides remaining __atomic symbols, so
    porting libatomic doesn't seem to make sense.
    
    However, some of the target arch-only tests in
    add_options_for_libatomic cover vxworks targets, so we end up
    attempting to link libatomic in, even though it's not there.
    Preempt those too-broad tests.
    
    
    Co-Authored-By: Marc Poulhiès <poulh...@adacore.com>
    
    for  libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog
    
            * testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp (add_options_for_libatomic):
            None for *-*-vxworks*.

Diff:
---
 libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp | 5 +++++
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)

diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp 
b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp
index 84f9e3ebc73..0d77fb029b0 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/testsuite/lib/dg-options.exp
@@ -338,6 +338,11 @@ proc atomic_link_flags { paths } {
 }
 
 proc add_options_for_libatomic { flags } {
+    # We don't (need to) build libatomic for vxworks.  Don't try to
+    # link it in, even on arches that support libatomic.
+    if { [istarget *-*-vxworks*] } {
+       return $flags
+    }
     if { [istarget hppa*-*-hpux*]
         || ([istarget powerpc*-*-*] && [check_effective_target_ilp32])
         || [istarget riscv*-*-*]