CLOOG/ppl failure in ct-ng 1.9.0

Bryan Hundven bryanhundven@gmail.com
Thu Jan 13 23:47:00 GMT 2011


On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Yann E. MORIN
<yann.morin.1998@anciens.enib.fr> wrote:
> Bryan, All,
>
> On Wednesday 12 January 2011 11:35:35 Bryan Hundven wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Bryan Hundven <bryanhundven@gmail.com> wrote:
> [--SNIP--]
>> > http://repo.or.cz/w/cloog-ppl.git -- the cloog-ppl repository
>> > (originally a port of cloog to the parma polyhedra library) hasn't had
>> > an update since late August of 2010. But PPL is still very busy...
>> >
>> > http://repo.or.cz/w/cloog.git -- which was the original cloog tree has
>> > released 0.16.1 4 days ago, and PolyLib
>> > (http://icps.u-strasbg.fr/polylib/) has been gpl3 since January of
>> > 2010.
>> >
>> > http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/Graphite/Merge_CLooG_PPL_back_to_CLooG

My understanding here was that someday the master cloog repo would get
PPL support.
As you mention, maybe we are not there yet.

>> >
>> > I wonder if newer toolchains should use Cloog+PolyLib_or_PPL instead
>> > of Cloog-PPL+PPL, and if it is tested? If this is true, then please
>> > remove 0.15.10.
>>
>> I misspoke. It would be: ClooG+PPL instead of ClooG-PPL+PPL
>
> I'm not sure I follow you on this, but:
> - the CLooG team is now officially releasing a PPL-based version of CLooG
> - the official PPL-based CLooG released is now named cloog-parma, instead
>  of cloog-ppl

Oh! I didn't notice that repository. So if we updated to 0.16.0 and
0.16.1, we would want cloog-parma (?!?).

In that case, we should clean up ct-ng's config stuff. Some places, we
want to just say CLOOG, and some places we want CLOOG_PPL and others
CLOOG_PARMA.

For instance, CT_CLOOG_VERSION would stay the same and CT_CLOOG would
stay the same, but the version going into CT_CLOOG_VERSION might come
from either:
CT_CLOOG_PPL_V_0_15_9
or
CT_CLOOG_PARMA_V_0_16_1

because, when the master cloog repository gets the PPL backend
support, we will have:

CT_CLOOG_V_x_xx_x
(which is what it is now, and is misleading)

> - gcc 4.4 and 4.5 do require PPL + CLooG/PPL (when GRAPHITE is enabled)
> - gcc 4.6 still references PPL + CLooG/PPL (when GRAPHITE is enabled)
> - all three gcc versions document CLooG/PPL 0.15
>
> So I believe this is not yet time to switch to anything else. Just merely
> changing the tarball we download if we bump the CLooG/PPL version! :-)
>
> Regards,
> Yann E. MORIN.
>
> --
> .-----------------.--------------------.------------------.--------------------.
> |  Yann E. MORIN  | Real-Time Embedded | /"\ ASCII RIBBON | Erics' conspiracy: |
> | +33 662 376 056 | Software  Designer | \ / CAMPAIGN     |  ___               |
> | +33 223 225 172 `------------.-------:  X  AGAINST      |  \e/  There is no  |
> | http://ymorin.is-a-geek.org/ | _/*\_ | / \ HTML MAIL    |   v   conspiracy.  |
> '------------------------------^-------^------------------^--------------------'
>


-Bryan

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq



More information about the crossgcc mailing list