From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28169 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2009 06:58:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 28157 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2009 06:58:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com (HELO ey-out-1920.google.com) (74.125.78.144) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:58:16 +0000 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 13so574138eye.14 for ; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.210.128.17 with SMTP id a17mr4289871ebd.4.1249109893410; Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.2.99? (cpc2-cmbg8-0-0-cust61.cmbg.cable.ntl.com [82.6.108.62]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 10sm5039305eyd.52.2009.07.31.23.58.12 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:58:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A73EA9A.6050701@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:58:00 -0000 From: Dave Korn User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Basile STARYNKEVITCH CC: Dave Korn , tromey@redhat.com, GCC Mailing List Subject: Re: MELT tutorial on the wiki References: <4A707003.8060103@starynkevitch.net> <4A728EE2.2050401@starynkevitch.net> <4A73E386.3080508@gmail.com> <4A73E407.8030407@starynkevitch.net> In-Reply-To: <4A73E407.8030407@starynkevitch.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2009-08/txt/msg00006.txt.bz2 Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote: > Dave Korn wrote: >> Tom Tromey wrote: >> >>> I looked into this a little. It looks like the PPL checks don't work >>> properly in the case where PPL is a system library. I guess I need >>> --with-ppl=/usr ... I will try that later. >> >> Were you using a --prefix? The PPL checks (by design I think) only >> look for PPL in your prefix. > > Sorry DaveK, are you talking of only the MELT branch or of the current > gcc trunk (future 4.5)? Trunk. > In the latter (trunk) case, what is the > rationale for checking only in the prefix? I do not know it; I have merely observed the behaviour. It may even not be by design for all I know, though I suspect it makes sense - where else would you look but in the prefix? Prefixes exist to create separation between packages. > I have to clean up a bit my MELT's gcc/configure.ac, but I cannot > understand why apparently the trunk's gcc/configure.ac does not set any > HAVE_ppl flag. > > Why is there no > if test "x${PPPLLIBS}" != "x" ; then > AC_DEFINE(HAVE_ppl, 1, [Define if PPL is in use.]) > fi > near line 4110 of the trunk's gcc/configure.ac ? I imagine nobody has needed one yet. > IMHO, such a test and such a generated #define makes a lot of sense (at > least inside plugins). It certainly does. I'm sure there's no reason not to add it. cheers, DaveK