On Jul 1, 2026, Rainer Orth <[email protected]> wrote: > gcc/libgcc.a will not be found and finding et-static.exp will > fail.
I think my -print-file-name suggestion would help with that, and also with installed testing. To be clear, I'm not so concerned about using some random source tree to test a very old installed compiler. I don't think that's a scenario worth worrying about. What I expect to be far more common (though not anywhere as common as build-tree testing, sadly) is for someone to build, install, (package?), deploy, and then test the toolchain as a user would, using the corresponding testsuite because that's what that compiler version is supposed to be compatible with. So if that testsuite expects there to be a et-static.exp or whatever, it shall find it, instead of requiring additional steps for it to be there. -- Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/ Free Software Activist FSFLA co-founder GNU Toolchain Engineer Learn the truth about Richard Stallman at https://stallmansupport.org/
