On Tue, Apr 05, 2011 at 06:31:11PM -0500, DJ Lucas wrote: > With GCC-4.6.0, any renewed interest in Graphite by those who know more > than I? The Cloog-PPL fork is now Cloog-Pharma upstream, though I > haven't introduced it into a local build yet and haven't checked to see > if the license issue is fixed with the upstream version (that is why > Cloog-PPL was created initially at GNU). I should have a > cross-tools/multi-lib build of it done in an hour or so. Also FYI, the > test-suite for these two packages add a considerable amount of time to > the build so it may or may not be worth it. I don't know what packages > can take advantage of it...just building for the heck of it for now in a > test build. > From my viewpoint (minimalist, extra packages which aren't mandatory need to be justified), the lack of applications (that I know of, maybe there is now something) which detect and use Cloog-whichever was the problem.
Apart from the extra time, of course - I assume that it builds and tests in a tolerable time on state-of-the-art hardware, and takes a lot longer on older hardware. We used to encourage people to build on (old) redundant hardware, but perhaps those days have gone. Maybe someone can now point to a package that LFS builders are likely to want to use, which benefits from having it available, and will therefore justify including it in LFS ? ĸen -- das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
