This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Ping: [PATCH] Support official CLooG.org versions.
On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Nathanael Nerode (throwaway)
<ncn_throwaway@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 10/28/2010 06:28 AM, Andreas SimbÃrger wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 4:59 AM, Sebastian Pop <sebpop@gmail.com> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>> Andreas, I think we could remove all the runtime checks and only rely
>>> on the compile time checks of the CLooG version. ÂWhat do you think?
>>>
>>
>> The runtime checks are disabled, if we're cross-compiling.
>
> Really? ÂThe patch I looked at doesn't disable them anywhere. ÂAre you
> relying on recent autoconf behavior, and if so is that behavior
> documented? Â(My autoconf mastery is slightly out of date.)
>
AC_CACHE_CHECK([for version $1.$2.$3 of CLooG (run time)],
[gcc_cv_cloog_rt_0_14_0],
[AC_RUN_IFELSE([_CLOOG_CHECK_RT_PROG()],
[gcc_cv_cloog_rt_0_14_0=yes],
[gcc_cv_cloog_rt_0_14_0=no],
[gcc_cv_cloog_rt_0_14_0=guessing yes])])
Macro: AC_RUN_IFELSE (input, [action-if-true], [action-if-false],
[action-if-cross-compiling])
> (Or did you add the disabling in a patch version I haven't seen... in
> which case we have to check that you did it "right" Â:-) )
>
>> There are scenarios where the runtime checks are useful.
> It seems unlikely that anyone would install mismatching compilers and
> runtimes, doesn't it... especially where build = host?
>
>> So as long as they don't break anything I would leave them in.
>> However i'm not an expert in writing configure scripts ;-)
> Well, I was, though I'm a bit out of date, so... :-)
>
>> So, if it helps the acceptance of this patch, I will remove the runtime
>> checks. :-)
>>
>> I did not test a canadian cross, just added the bypass for the runtime
>> check in case of cross-compilation.
>
> Test it, OK? ÂToo many people check in stuff which breaks under build !=
> host conditions (and there's at least one unrelated one I know about
> which someone will need to go back and fix later). ÂIf you don't want to
> test it, take them out, they seem redundant.
>
I will remove them for now, makes the patch easier to review and if a problem
arises, it can be added later.
Cheers,
Andreas