Running gas testsuite

[Maciej W. Rozycki]

On Tue, 19 May 2020, Stephen Casner wrote:

> > Since you asked: I'd prefer everything test-wise be kept in the
> > respective testsuite/ subdirectory, *including* the
> > whatever.log, but either way I'd prefer consistency, and don't
> > actually mind if it changed for the better as long as someone
> > (else) is doing the work. :)
> 
> Well, having everything consistently under a testsuite subdirectory
> would be fine with me, too, so long as it does not run into trouble
> with relative pathnames.  I notice that sim does this properly by
> having a separate Makefile there, as Andrew suggested.  Under binutils
> there is a testsuite subdirectory but only puts gentestdlls there and
> still leaves tmpdir and the .log and .sum files in binutils itself.
> For ld there is no testsuite subdirectory.  If I broaden my view to
> the list of a bazillion tools potentially covered by the top-level
> Makefile, I have no idea what the trend would be.

 For the record both the GDB testsuite and all the testsuites from the GCC 
project (which shares the top-level build infrastructure and used to 
support tree combining with binutils for a single build) run in the 
respective testsuite/ subdirectories, and I have always found binutils/ 
and ld/ annoying oddballs (not annoying enough to do anything about that 
though).

 Also it's been a while since I last configured with a relative pathname, 
so I have no recent experience with such an arrangement.  It's probably 
less often used or the bug you mention would have been sorted; the best 
way to do it might be by canonicalising srcdir and objdir.

  Maciej