Hi Jack, Sorry for replying so late _ got a bit swamped by other things..
On 08 Aug 2010, at 15:02, Jack Howarth wrote: > On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 07:44:05PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote: >> Right _ I see now that cloog.h unconditionally includes ppl_c.h >> (indirectly); >> so if in some compilations of the build of gcc, headers from both >> ppl and cloog are called, >> that might be a source of trouble. >> I guess you know that there are such compilations .. (?) >> .... >> I can see no runtime problems, since things are linked by >> install_name; >> even in the same binary, you could conceivably have 2 different >> symbols >> coming resp. from libfoo1.dylib and libfoo2.dylib. >> But here gcc would just link with cloog and the ppl it was built >> with, >> while cloog itself will link against whatever ppl it was built with. >> That is no problem. > > JF, > You're neglecting the fact that gcc loads the ppl headers via the > cloog headers.... That was exactly my question in the first paragraph quoted above. Extracted a build-dir to check, and indeed, EVERY include for cloog.h is followed (preceded in the case of graphite_ppl.c) immediately by one of ppl_c.h... And I assume that the multiple-inclusion guards in the 2 ppl versions are the same. Then, in effect, it is as if there was only an include for cloog.h in all files except for graphite_ppl.c... It might still be designed to work well with 2 different versions of ppl, but I fully agree with you that it looks much too iffy to play on without a full understanding. JF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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 [email protected] http://news.gmane.org/gmane.os.apple.fink.devel Subscription management: https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-devel
