On Apr 6, 2011, at 6:14 PM, Ken Moffat <k...@linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> 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. The number of applications directly using these libs isn't now, nor likely ever to be, the argument for inclusion. It will be rare to find more packages that want or need these. The main driving force for wanting these is the compilation optimizations and performance gains that they bring to the toolchain. There's explanations given, if you search for them, as to why the gcc devs decided to begin using these libs when available. JH -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
