On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Sebastian Pop <seb...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Sebastian Pop wrote: >>> Richard Biener wrote: >>> > I think it would be better to identify a set of features we rely on that >>> > are not present in earlier versions and make the test a link >>> > test unconditionally. >>> > >>> > Tobias, are there include files / types / functions we require >>> > that are not available in earlier versions? >>> >>> The version 0.12 of ISL has an include file isl/val.h that is not present in >>> previous versions of ISL. >>> >>> There also was a patch from Mircea a few weeks ago that was missing the >>> configure bits to check that the isl version contained isl/val.h. >>> I will update both patches and submit for review. >> >> I see that Mircea's patch has been committed: >> >> commit c5ec3cc336c7d42d9ad2995395d430b99a9a34cc >> Author: mircea <mircea@138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4> >> Date: Mon Aug 11 15:05:48 2014 +0000 >> >> Replacement of isl_int by isl_val >> >> git-svn-id: svn+ssh://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk@213816 >> 138bc75d-0d04-0410-961f-82ee72b054a4 >> >> Attached a patch to check for isl/val.h instead of ISL's release number. >> >> Bootstrapping on x86-64. Ok to commit? > > Ok. I suppose the "checking for version 0.12 of ISL" is now slightly > misleading - maybe change it to "checking for compatible ISL"?
Is the interface between isl/gcc stable enough? If it's not, the work "compatible" is definitely confusing for users who don't know isl like me. If it is stable, it won't be a problem. Thanks, bin > > Thanks, > Richard. > >> Thanks, >> Sebastian
