CLooG hell

Jonathan Wakely
Mon Jul 16 18:57:00 GMT 2012

On 16 July 2012 18:03, Vladimir Kraljević wrote:
> Dear Sir,
> I find the tone of your letter inappropriate. CAPITALS, "Clear enough yet",
> "Do you understand that yet?" and similar phrases could be offensive to some
> people. If you directed it toward a young man, it could have devastating
> results for that young spirit.

That young spirit should learn to read the help offered then.

> However, I'm not here to argue with you, I'm here to get some help - I
> believe that is the reason that some wise guy named this mailing list
> gcc-help, but it seems that nobody recalls why these days.
> Now, I'd like to write something to the people willing to actually help, if
> there are such.

What more do you need than ?

Why have you ignored the last paragraph when asking for more help?

> I'm using help from when trying to build gcc
> from files I got with the following command (and my intention was to get
> graphite, framework for HL mem optimizations, maybe I got something wrong, I
> don't know):
> svn co svn:// graphite

Why are you doing that?  All work from that branch has been merged to
the trunk long ago.

Why are you still not showing the configure command you used, despite
a clear request for that information?

Why are you expecting people to help you when you ignore the help
given?  You don't have to like my tone, but I gave you directions to
get a working GCC 4.7.1 with graphite optimizations, do you want
something else or are you just being difficult for the sake of it?

> I've also tried and successfully built gcc 4.6.3, gcc 4.7.1 and gcc 4.8.0
> without graphite support. Now I wanted the graphite framework included in
> the build, in order to test optimizations provided.

What's wrong with the instructions at ?

> I'm stuck with something I don't have time to investigate, so I'm kindly
> asking for help, if there is competent person, willing to hear and track the
> issue with me.

What's wrong with the instructions at ?

> My ultimate goal is working gcc (with latest libraries if
> possible, if not - say so - don't write "libppl 0.11 or later" if it
> actually requires "libppl 0.11 ONLY",

The latest version of the installation docs don't even mention PPL at
all, but if you want the old docs changed then report it to bugzilla,
not here.

> I believe that we need clarification
> on this - google and you'll find that I'm not the only one having trouble
> with this issue) and g++ supporting these new optimization methods.

What's wrong with the instructions at ?

More information about the Gcc-help mailing list