On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sven Verdoolaege wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 06:56:38PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > I don't see why that should make any difference to the build requirements. > > If CLooG-ISL builds and installs a library libisl.a as well as > > libcloog-isl.a (as config/cloog.m4 thinks it does at present), why should > > someone need to download and install a separate ISL package rather than > > getting libisl.a from CLooG-ISL? > > The one that comes with CLooG may not be recent enough.
Do you mean there is not only a requirement to build both libraries, but there is a requirement to build CLooG *first*, then ISL, so that ISL's libisl.a overwrites CLooG's rather than the other way round (supposing that they are installed in the same prefix)? That's clearly not a sensible approach. If you can't make the version included in CLooG the right one for GCC, then stop including it in CLooG altogether (like GMP stopped including MPFR some years ago). -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
