Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Korn <[email protected]> writes:
>
> Dave> Were you using a --prefix? The PPL checks (by design I think) only
> Dave> look for PPL in your prefix.
>
> Dave> I do not know it; I have merely observed the behaviour. It may
> Dave> even not be by design for all I know, though I suspect it makes
> Dave> sense - where else would you look but in the prefix? Prefixes
> Dave> exist to create separation between packages.
>
> That didn't seem to be what the code on Basile's branch does.
>
> But, if this is what the PPL checks do actually do somewhere, then they
> are broken. Prefix is for specifying the install tree -- specifying how
> the build is done is handled by other options.
Ah, I think I misunderstood what's going on. If you specify --with-ppl, what
happens:
> AC_ARG_WITH(ppl, [ --with-ppl=PATH Specify prefix directory for the
> installed PPL package
> Equivalent to --with-ppl-include=PATH/include
> plus --with-ppl-lib=PATH/lib],, with_ppl=no)
> AC_ARG_WITH(ppl_include, [ --with-ppl-include=PATH Specify directory for
> installed PPL include files])
> AC_ARG_WITH(ppl_lib, [ --with-ppl-lib=PATH Specify the directory for the
> installed PPL library])
>
> case $with_ppl in
> no)
> ppllibs=
> ;;
> *)
> ppllibs="-L$with_ppl/lib -lppl_c -lppl -lgmpxx"
> pplinc="-I$with_ppl/include $pplinc"
> LIBS="$ppllibs $LIBS"
> ;;
> esac
... is that it looks in /lib and /include, which is fairly likely to succeed -
but only because you'll also have $prefix/lib and $prefix/include in the -L and
-I settings anyway (when compiling stages 2/3 and target libs). Change your
--prefix setting to some other tree where you don't have a PPL installation and
all of a sudden using plain "--with-ppl" will fail, and you may think it's
because it is looking for ppl in $prefix, when in fact the answer is that it
should complain about an empty --with-ppl with no argument.
cheers,
DaveK
