* Jack Howarth wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 03:01:16PM CEST:
>My point was that in this case not only does ppl-0.11 require
> the existing soversion of cloog to be rebuilt but also all other
> previously built gcc releases that used it as well.
>Considering that the existing cloog-0.15.9 s
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 05:05:19PM +0200, Richard Guenther wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> > Ralf,
> > Looking at Fedora 13 and Debian
> > unstable, I see that their gcc 4.4
> > compilers are using -ldl to avoid
> > an explicit linkage on libppl_c, libppl
> > and li
On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
> Ralf,
> Looking at Fedora 13 and Debian
> unstable, I see that their gcc 4.4
> compilers are using -ldl to avoid
> an explicit linkage on libppl_c, libppl
> and libcloog. However this still leaves
> them open to a mismatch should they
> silent
Ralf,
Looking at Fedora 13 and Debian
unstable, I see that their gcc 4.4
compilers are using -ldl to avoid
an explicit linkage on libppl_c, libppl
and libcloog. However this still leaves
them open to a mismatch should they
silently uprgrade libcloog from a
version built against ppl-0.10.2 to
one
On Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 07:39:49AM +0200, Ralf Wildenhues wrote:
> * Jack Howarth wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:31:31AM CEST:
> >I have been mulling over how to transition the
> > current gcc4x and cloog packages in fink to the new
> > ppl-0.11 release and believe we really need to have
> >
* Jack Howarth wrote on Fri, Aug 06, 2010 at 02:31:31AM CEST:
>I have been mulling over how to transition the
> current gcc4x and cloog packages in fink to the new
> ppl-0.11 release and believe we really need to have
> a soversion bump on cloog to safely do this on
> systems with pre-existing
Sebastian,
An alternative solution to a version bump would be to
modify current cloog build such that the shared libraries
could be built under a different basename (but retain
the same libcloog.dylib symlink and header names otherwise
for development purposes).
Jack
