What precisely is the status of ppl/cloog anyway?

What precisely is the status of ppl/cloog anyway?

[Dave Korn]

  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?

    cheers,
      DaveK

Re: What precisely is the status of ppl/cloog anyway?

[Paolo Bonzini]

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?

Optional.

Paolo

Re: What precisely is the status of ppl/cloog anyway?

[Dave Korn]

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?
> 
> Optional.
> 
> Paolo

  Ah, so if there's no --with specified, and no in-tree version, we can't just
fall back on defaulting to $prefix, we need to actually do a proper search to
see if there's a cloog/ppl install there and decide whether to build it or
not.  Hmm, the version check will need to be skipped in that case.

  Or if no --with-cloog option is given, should the default be to assume
--with-cloog=no, rather than try and guess?

[ All said here also applies to --with-ppl pro rata. ]

    cheers,

[PATCH] Fix bootstrap when no --with-ppl/--with-cloog [was Re: What precisely is the status of ppl/cloog anyway?]

[Dave Korn]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 856 bytes --]

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?
>> Optional.

>   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.

ChangeLog

	* configure.ac ($with_ppl):  Default to no if not supplied.
	($with_cloog):  Likewise.

  Assuming it passes bootstrap, ok for HEAD?

    cheers,
      DaveK


[-- Attachment #2: cloog-ppl-not-mandatory.diff --]
[-- Type: text/x-c, Size: 556 bytes --]

Index: configure.ac
===================================================================
--- 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 
-  no)
+  no|"")
     ppllibs=
     ;;
   *)
@@ -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 
-  no)
+  no|"")
     clooglibs=
     clooginc=
     ;;