Re: [Gc] Should libatomic_ops be inside bdwgc?
ivmai at mail.ru
Thu Aug 11 10:35:23 PDT 2011
Thanks. Just merged. (I think you've already received a notification).
10 08 2011, 21:57 Petter Urkedal <urkedal at nbi.dk>:
> On 2011-08-10, Ivan Maidanski wrote:
> > Hi Hans and Petter,
> > I have moved libatomic_ops out of bdwgc repo recently.
> > So, if you want to compile bdwgc, you need to have libatomic_ops repo inside bdwgc's one.
> > The question is for the future - whether to have libatomic_ops in bdwgc release tar-ball or not?
> (For what it's worth, Fedora, Red Hat, Ubuntu and Gentoo ship
> libatomic_ops as a separate package (-devel only). Is the API
> reasonably stable and independent of libgc? Does it make sense to have
> a different release schedule for the two?)
> > Hans -
> > What do you think which distribution variant should be best (at least for gc72)?
> > In other words, do we still need "EXTRA_DIST += libatomic_ops"?
> > I see only that we shouldn't disable bdwgc configure & make with no libatomic_ops installation.
> > Petter -
> > 1. Based on the answer from Hans, could you prepare the relevant patch for the scripts (including any other things you think need adjusting, if any)? Thanks.
> > 2. The problem really in libatomic_ops itself (that is, I did "make distcheck" in it with the same result).
> Just sent you a pull request for this.
> Gc mailing list
> Gc at linux.hpl.hp.com
More information about the Gc