On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 08:11:30AM -0500, Hans-Peter Nilsson wrote: > On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Greg Schafer wrote: > > Hi Carlos and Mark, > > > > Your "Relocated compiler should not look in $prefix" patch here: > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00280.html > > > > appears to have caused a regression in my GCC 4.3 testing. > > So *now* I know why my cross-test setup to (non-sysrooted) > cris-axis-linux-gnu have trouble finding startfiles and > pre-installed include files! Thanks! It seems Carlos' fix for > the testsuite, has some flaw I'll look into. At the very least, > cutnpasting commands from the dejagnu .log files don't work; > there's some environment variable (more than just > GCC_EXEC_PREFIX, AFAICT). And some testsuites (forgot, maybe it > was libgomp?) need to be adjusted too.
On a related note, this patch has also caused a testsuite regression for me as evidenced by: WARNING: Could not compile g++.dg/compat/struct-layout-1 generator WARNING: Could not compile gcc.dg/compat/struct-layout-1 generator My context is building up a new system inside a chroot whereby I'm configuring GCC with --prefix=/usr but the "host" GCC is in some other prefix. The patch tries to fix the testsuite infrastructure by adding "set GCC_EXEC_PREFIX \"$(libdir)/gcc/\"" to site.exp. But in my scenario, this results in: gcc: error trying to exec 'cc1': execvp: No such file or directory gcc: error trying to exec 'cc1': execvp: No such file or directory gcc: error trying to exec 'cc1': execvp: No such file or directory when trying to build the generator programs. Ughh.. This patch has caused regressions for me and others. There must be a way to keep relocated compilers happy and ALSO not break existing setups that have been working for many years.. I'll file a PR. Thanks Greg
