This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Why does libiberty have to build before a C library?


>> (serialization)
>> configure-target-newlib: configure-target-libiberty
>
>That would explain a lot.  Didn't we get rid of the serialization
>dependencies?  I remember talking about it.

We didn't.  I agree that we should.  

However, I also think that we should get rid of the grotesque 
.NOTPARALLEL which is *still* hanging around, and which the 
serialization was designed to allow the removal of.

I still don't know why it's still there. :-(

Cache contention?  Who cares?  Someone indicated that it can never 
actually lead to a deadlock or use of a corrupted cache, so let's just 
do away with all the antiparallel stuff and deal with.  (And that's what 
the serialization dependencies were for.)

Is there some other reason to use .NOTPARALLEL?  Can it really be that 
important? :-/

--Nathanael


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]