[Gc] Re: Desperately needing GC 7.1
Hans.Boehm at hp.com
Thu Jan 24 21:26:08 PST 2008
I'm generally planning to maintain Makefile.direct. I also tend to
use it for testing on slow machines.
The problem is that occasionally some features are very hard to test
for without autoconf. The MacOSX issue you point out is one of those,
IIRC. In those cases, my inclination is to have Makefile.direct
assume the most common case (sometimes defined to be the one that
applies on my machine :-) ) and have configure.ac do something
more generally correct.
This does mean that I'm still in favor of patches that replace autoconf
tests with macro tests when that's possible without making a complete
mess of things.
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008, Manuel.Serrano at sophia.inria.fr wrote:
> If time permits before the official 7.1 is unleashed, I have two additional
> remarks concerning the 7.1 alpha2. The first one in this mail, the second
> one in the following...
> 1- In order to use Makefile.direct with 7.0 and 7.1 and MacOS X 10.5 on x32
> computers, I have had to add manually the compilation option:
> This was not needed on 10.4.
> 2- A Bigloo user has reported that Makefile.direct does not work with icc
> on Linux. I have not had the time to investigate myself, I will
> as soon as possible.
> I don't know if you wish to maintain Makefile.direct but I hope you
> will because using autoconf, automake and, libtool might be a true
> headache. I have for instance failed to use these tools for Bigloo because
> the compilation needs to bootstrap the compiler and thus it needs to
> use the libraries, including the GC, before installing them. I'm not
> knowledgeable enough to do this decently with libtool.
> In addition, I'm a little bit concerned about the portability, in a
> broad sense, of these tools (for instance, what about MacOS Xcode or
> Windows VisualStudio).
More information about the Gc