[Gc] Should libatomic_ops be inside bdwgc?
urkedal at nbi.dk
Wed Aug 10 10:51:57 PDT 2011
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.
More information about the Gc