On Wed, 6 Apr 2011 19:29:48 -0400, Jeremy Huntwork <jhuntw...@lightcubesolutions.com> wrote: > 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.
But, my current understanding (from a quick grep of the GCC manual) is that those optimizations have to be explicitly requested. The following appear to be dependent on CLooG/PPL: -ftree-loop-linear -floop-interchange -floop-strip-mine -floop-block -fgraphite-identity -floop-parallelize-all None of those flags are enabled by any of the more commonly used -O, -O2, -O3 switches, so they'd have to be explicitly requested in a package's Makefiles. Regards, Matt. -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
