https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88303
--- Comment #4 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 08:37:32AM +, jakub at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88303
>
> --- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
> Libgomp certainly does respect RUNTES
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88303
--- Comment #3 from Steve Kargl ---
On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 09:56:21AM +, rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88303
>
> Richard Biener changed:
>
>What|Removed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88303
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=88303
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Libgomp certainly does respect RUNTESTFLAGS, I use
make check-target-libgomp RUNTESTFLAGS=c.exp=atomic-2.c
and similar very often.
Isn't the problem that toplevel check-fortran depends on
check-target-libgom
