This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Cloog ISL - and linking of libisl
- From: Ralf Wildenhues <Ralf dot Wildenhues at gmx dot de>
- To: Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>, Tobias Grosser <grosser at fim dot uni-passau dot de>, gcc patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
- Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 21:34:17 +0100
- Subject: Re: Cloog ISL - and linking of libisl
- References: <4D5ACEFF.8090405@net-b.de> <AANLkTi=O1WUCzzm-GmXmstPiFQvBDAuFbedmB2EfoRMm@mail.gmail.com>
* Sebastian Pop wrote on Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 08:38:28PM CET:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 13:07, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> > --- config/cloog.m4 ? ? (revision 166641)
> > +++ config/cloog.m4 ? ? (working copy)
> > @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@
> > ? ? ? ;;
> > ? ? "ISL")
> > ? ? ? clooginc="${clooginc} ${_cloogorginc}"
> > - ? ? ?clooglibs="${clooglibs} -lcloog-isl"
> > + ? ? ?clooglibs="${clooglibs} -lcloog-isl -lisl"
>
> I think that this change makes sense but I cannot approve it.
> Paolo, could you please review this as well?
I'm not Paolo. But the patch is OK if libisl is always needed for this
configuration.
Does GCC call functions from libisl directly? If yes, then adding -lisl
is unconditionally a good thing. If not, then this should primarily
help for static linking. I assume that GCC cares less about the odd
extra library linked against than a broken link (witness the ppllibs in
configure.ac).
> > ? ? ? cloog_org=yes
> > ? ? ? ;;
> > ? ? "PPL")
Thanks,
Ralf