Hi Jack,
Sorry for replying so late _ got a bit swamped by other things..
On 08 Aug 2010, at 15:02, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 07:44:05PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>> Right _ I see now that cloog.h unconditionally includes ppl_c.h
>> (indirectly);
>> so if in some
FYI, it is now clear what will happen upstream. The existing
cloog-ppl package will NOT be modified to build against the new
ppl-0.11 release. Instead it will be depreciated in favor of
the upcoming cloog.org release of cloog 0.15. The cloog.org
release of cloog can be built against a bundled is
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 07:44:05PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>
>
> I can see no runtime problems, since thnigs are linked by install_name;
> even in the same binary, you could conceivably have 2 different symbols
> coming resp. from libfoo1.dylib and libfoo2.dylib.
> But here gcc would ju
On 06 Aug 2010, at 18:24, Jack Howarth wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:35:55PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>>
>> On 06 Aug 2010, at 17:32, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>>
>>> As long a cloog's own install_name doesn't change, I see in
>>> principle
>>> no problem in
>>> creating a n
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:35:55PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>
> On 06 Aug 2010, at 17:32, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>
>> As long a cloog's own install_name doesn't change, I see in principle
>> no problem in
>> creating a new ppl pkg for the new version (since there the install
>>
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:35:55PM +0200, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>
> On 06 Aug 2010, at 17:32, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
>
>> As long a cloog's own install_name doesn't change, I see in principle
>> no problem in
>> creating a new ppl pkg for the new version (since there the install
>>
On 06 Aug 2010, at 17:32, Jean-François Mertens wrote:
> As long a cloog's own install_name doesn't change, I see in
> principle no problem in
> creating a new ppl pkg for the new version (since there the install
> name does change),
> and to upgrade (independently, ie, whenever you want) clo
On 06 Aug 2010, at 15:52, Jack Howarth wrote:
> I would be interested in the general consensus on
> the following. A new recommended update to ppl,
> version 0.11, was released this week. Currently
> cloog won't build against this due to a version
> check which will soon be adjusted to allow thi
I would be interested in the general consensus on
the following. A new recommended update to ppl,
version 0.11, was released this week. Currently
cloog won't build against this due to a version
check which will soon be adjusted to allow this.
However, allowing cloog to build with the same
soversi
