On Fri, 12 Aug 2011, Sven Verdoolaege wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 07:16:55PM +0000, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > > 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)? > > No. You build isl first and configure CLooG to use that isl.
Will CLooG give an error if you configure it in such a way that its isl would overwrite one previously installed? If not, this seems too error-prone - there's no obvious way for CLooG to know whether a previously installed isl comes from a previous installation of CLooG (should be overwritten) or was installed on its own (so CLooG should be built to use it). The requirements for how CLooG is configured need to be clearly documented in GCC's documentation. But, first, all these proposals (starting with the one to use CLooG-ISL instead of CLooG-PPL) need to be raised in their own threads on the gcc list, making clear exactly what is proposed, how it has been tested on different hosts and how many versions the requirements are expected to be stable for - patch submission should be the very last stage after sufficient discussion (and notice to the many GCC builders who may not follow gcc-patches) on the gcc list. -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
