Re: undefined reference to C++ constructs in libppl when linking cc1-dummy.exe

[Arnaud Lacombe <lacombar at gmail dot com>]

Hi,

[FWIW, I don't know if you're still ignoring me or not.]

On Tue, Aug 31, 2010 at 8:00 PM, Yann E. MORIN
<yann.morin.1998@anciens.enib.fr> wrote:
> So, I've taken the stance to make all those madatory, as they enable
> quite a bunch of optimisations. Obviously, we could get rid of PPL and
> CLooG/PPL, but I'd rather fix the build than remove a feature because
> it breaks on one (probably minor) system.
>
There is a huge gap [I will not take] between removing a feature and
letting the user choose. If something is not mandatory, make it not
mandatory, decision is not yours to take.

That said, generally, I do a build in 2 pass, one pass to be sure the
core build (binutils+libc+compiler) and one pass with fancy stuff
enabled. PPL is especially a PITA as it takes a long time to build and
I really don't want to discover FOO is broken on an arch after it has
been built. This makes your ct-ng pretty unusable, too static in its
process.

 - Arnaud

--
For unsubscribe information see http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faq