Essentially by maintaining a list of gcc versions / architectures that work well enough with reduced optimizations, and that are hopelessly broken. This can just be some shell script that shitlists specific compilers...
On Monday, April 30, 2012 10:41:11 AM UTC-4, Jeroen Demeyer wrote: > > On 2012-04-30 16:36, Volker Braun wrote: > > Given that compiler optimizations are likely to use new additions to the > > ISA, I propose that our strategy for deciding whether or not to build > > gcc should be: > > > > 1) use OS provided gcc if it works fine (of course) > > > > 2) build our own gcc on OSX (very popular and hopelessly broken, but at > > least we know the binutils version) > > > > 3) build with reduced optimization if the OS gcc is broken but works > > with less optimization (say, -O2 -march=generic) > > > > 4) build our own gcc if the OS gcc is hopelessly broken > Nice idea, but how are you going to distinguish between the various cases? > -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
