Re: [patches] RFA: Use cross nm in NPTL tests

[Jim Blandy <jimb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

"Carlos O'Donell" <carlos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On 1/30/07, Jim Blandy <jimb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> -ifeq (no,$(cross-compiling))
>> +# ifeq (no,$(cross-compiling))
>>  ifeq (yes,$(build-shared))
>>  tests: $(objpfx)tst-cancel-wrappers.out
>>  $(objpfx)tst-cancel-wrappers.out: tst-cancel-wrappers.sh
>> -       $(SHELL) $< $(common-objpfx)libc_pic.a \
>> +       $(SHELL) $< '$(NM)' \
>> +                   $(common-objpfx)libc_pic.a \
>>                     $(common-objpfx)libc.a \
>>                     $(objpfx)libpthread_pic.a \
>>                     $(objpfx)libpthread.a > $@
>>  endif
>> -endif
>> +# endif
>
> Jim,
>
> Why are we commenting out code instead of removing it?

Which do you think would be better?  My concern is ease of merging: a
deleted line doesn't look like anything, and 'svn annotate' isn't
helpful in finding deletions.  So a conflict between an imported
change and one of these changes would take more effort to sort out
than it would if the conditional had simply been commented out.