On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:35:55PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote: > > On 06 Aug 2010, at 17:32, Jean-François Mertens wrote: > >> As long a cloog's own install_name doesn't change, I see in principle >> no problem in >> creating a new ppl pkg for the new version (since there the install >> name does change), >> and to upgrade (independently, ie, whenever you want) cloog and one or >> more gccxy pkgs >> to use the new ppl (and/or) the updated cloog. >> I.e., cloog and gccxy using diferent ppl's should not be a problem per >> se >> (as long as you can prevent cloog's flags for ppl to come before gcc's >> own flags in the >> build of gcc; but that's at worst a flag-ordering problem). > > More explicity, for cloog it can be a plain version update, and things > that linked to > the old version should continue linking well with the new, w/o > rebuilding. > > JF
JF, FYI, my interest from this comes from the following... http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-08/msg00159.html With this merge -fgraphite-identity will be close to a win (once the induct regression is fixed). It will be interesting to see how much better those results are against ppl-0.11 (compile time and run time) but I haven't puzzled out a clean way to upgrade my machine without forcing a total rebuild of the gcc4x packages against a new cloog built with ppl-0.11. Jack ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by Make an app they can't live without Enter the BlackBerry Developer Challenge http://p.sf.net/sfu/RIM-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Fink-devel mailing list Fink-devel@lists.sourceforge.net http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel Subscription management: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
