This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: RFC: Update ISL under gcc/infrastructure/ ? // Remove CLooG?
- From: Richard Biener <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: Tobias Burnus <tobias dot burnus at physik dot fu-berlin dot de>
- Cc: GCC Development <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, Tobias Grosser <tobias at grosser dot es>, Roman Gareev <gareevroman at gmail dot com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2014 16:21:17 +0100
- Subject: Re: RFC: Update ISL under gcc/infrastructure/ ? // Remove CLooG?
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20141104151755 dot GA13200 at physik dot fu-berlin dot de>
On Tue, Nov 4, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Tobias Burnus
> Hi all,
> currently, contrib/download_prerequisites downloads isl-0.12.2 from
> However, that version has a bug which causes an ICE (PR 62289).
> End of October, ISL 0.14 was released, which should contain a fix for
> that issue. Hence, one should consider using 0.14 instead of /infrastructure/
> and download_prerequisites.
> Download: http://isl.gforge.inria.fr
> Disclaimer: I haven't tested that version, yet.
> * * *
> The page https://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html lists 0.12.2 as
> version to be used (without "(or later)").
> The configure script does some version checks, but seeminly only to rule
> out early version of ISL as it is only the check for an include file.
> According to https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/isl-development/CQGVfj60SQM
> "0.14 was kept backward compatible with 0.13." [But 0.15 will break it.]
> Thus, assuming 0.13 works, 0.14 also should work. Release notes:
> * * *
> Comments? Especially from Richard and Tobias?
Is ISL 0.14 finally suitable again for compiling GCC 4.9 and 4.8? ISTR
ISL 0.13 dropped important APIs from 0.12.x.
Otherwise putting ISL 0.14 to infrastructure in addition to 0.12.x is ok
of course. Also finally removing the CLooG code from trunk.
> * * *
> Finally, is CLooG still needed or will GCC also work with only ISL? Looking
> at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2014-08/msg01742.html , it seems as if
> it is about the right time to remove it.