On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 01:24:43PM -0500, Taral wrote:
> I'm packaging acl2, which can take several hours to compile on a PPro
> 200. Would it be reasonable to exclude certain architectures as too
> slow? (acl2 is a theorem prover.)
eg your PPro 200? :-)
Hamish
--
Hamish Moffatt VK3SB <[EMAIL P
On Sun, Apr 22, 2001 at 08:31:55PM +0200, Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> Previously Taral wrote:
> > I'm packaging acl2, which can take several hours to compile on a PPro
> > 200. Would it be reasonable to exclude certain architectures as too
> > slow? (acl2 is a theorem prover.)
>
> No.
Argeed. Lots
>I'm packaging acl2, which can take several hours to compile on a PPro
>200. Would it be reasonable to exclude certain architectures as too
>slow? (acl2 is a theorem prover.)
No. The porters can make up their own minds about whether it's worth
compiling for their architecture. We already have p
Previously Taral wrote:
> I'm packaging acl2, which can take several hours to compile on a PPro
> 200. Would it be reasonable to exclude certain architectures as too
> slow? (acl2 is a theorem prover.)
No.
Wichert.
--
/ Genera
4 matches
Mail list logo