This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Fwd: [PATCH] Fix bootstrap when no --with-ppl/--with-cloog [was Re: What precisely is the status of ppl/cloog anyway?]]
- From: Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>
- To: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 06 May 2009 18:39:08 +0100
- Subject: [Fwd: [PATCH] Fix bootstrap when no --with-ppl/--with-cloog [was Re: What precisely is the status of ppl/cloog anyway?]]
-------- Original Message --------
CC: "gcc-patches AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org" <gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org>
ROFL, how did I manage that? Resent to the right place.
Dave Korn wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Dave Korn wrote:
>>> Sorry to have to ask a dumb question, but it's not clear to me and I'm not
>>> having a lot of luck searching recent list posts:
>>> Are cloog and ppl now mandatory requirements for building gcc, or are they
>>> still optional extras?
> Or if no --with-cloog option is given, should the default be to assume
> --with-cloog=no, rather than try and guess?
Given that they are optional, I think this option made sense; they shouldn't
even come into play unless the user explicitly asks for them.
> [ All said here also applies to --with-ppl pro rata. ]
So I'm currently testing the attached.
* configure.ac ($with_ppl): Default to no if not supplied.
Assuming it passes bootstrap, ok for HEAD?
--- configure.ac (revision 147098)
+++ configure.ac (working copy)
@@ -1344,7 +1344,7 @@
AC_ARG_WITH(ppl_lib, [ --with-ppl-lib=PATH Specify the directory for the installed PPL library])
case $with_ppl in
@@ -1399,7 +1399,7 @@
AC_ARG_WITH(cloog_lib, [ --with-cloog-lib=PATH Specify the directory for the installed CLooG library])
case $with_cloog in