[RFA: and RFC:] run_dump_test in ld: extensions and globalityof testsuite functions.

[Hans-Peter Nilsson]

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