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: Jack Howarth <howarth at bromo dot med dot uc dot edu>
- To: Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>
- Cc: Sebastian Pop <sebpop at gmail dot com>, Tobias Grosser <grosser at fim dot uni-passau dot de>, gcc patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 18:20:00 -0400
- Subject: Re: Cloog ISL - and linking of libisl
- References: <4D5ACEFF.8090405@net-b.de>
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 08:07:43PM +0100, Tobias Burnus wrote:
> Dear Sebastian and Tobias, hello all,
>
> I think GCC should automatically link libisl ("-lisl") if one configures
> GCC to use cloog-isl. That's the first patch at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2010-11/msg01272.html , which remains
> unreviewed. (The second part about "-lpwl" looks a bit odd.)
>
> The issue came also up today at #gfortran - and the proposed solutions
> was the same.
>
> I think automatically linking libisl makes sense and is also in line
> with PPL, which is linked via the toplevel configure.ac (cf. second -
> bogus - part of the linked patch or simply the file itself).
>
> The patch I am talking about is:
>
> Index: config/cloog.m4
> ===================================================================
> --- 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"
> cloog_org=yes
> ;;
> "PPL")
>
>
>
> Tobias
Tobias,
Are we certain that it is essential to explicitly link in -lisl?
This change has caused an unnecessary rebuild of FSF gcc when upgrading
cloog.org from 0.16.1 to 0.16.2 due to the soversion bump on libisl.
Do we know of any direct calls from graphite into libisl? If all accesses
are done through the API in libcloog-isl, which hasn't been version bumped,
the extra linkage on -lisl would appear to be unnecessary.
Jack