On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Rainer Orth wrote: > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> writes: > > > The GMP people complained that we "advertise" outdated versions > > in our install instructions. I tried to address that by not > > explicitely listing a "good" version but only mention the version > > that is the minimum requirement. I also added a reference to > > contrib/download_prerequesites as the recommended way to do > > in-tree builds (so we don't get random bugreports for that > > with untested combinations of gmp/mpfr/mpc versions). > > > > We probably should try to bump the versions used by that script > > to something more recent though (should we do that for the 4.9 > > branch even?). Any idea what to choose here? I'd say mpc > > 1.0.2 is fine, so is mpfr 3.1.2, but should we avoid the 6.0.0 version > > of gmp? We shouldn't change those versions too often, otherwise > > we end up with a lot of garbage in gcc/infrastructure (we don't > > want to break old versions of the script). > > > > Meanwhile is does the patch look ok? > > I'd strongly advise against it: in the past we've had serious problems > with versions newer than advertised in install.texi on some platforms. > Until we have positive evidence that specific newer versions work on a > wide range of platforms, we shouldn't suggest to our users that they > might. Many users tried with the then-current versions in the past, and > the failures are often quite hard to trace back to this.
Note that I explicitely added the reference to download_prerequesites for the case the user wants/needs to build the libraries together with GCC. That should address this concern, no? > For the 4.9 branch, we should leave this as is: the benefit is almost > certainly not worth the trouble. Of course. Though the version referenced from http://gcc.gnu.org/install is the one from trunk. Richard. -- Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> SUSE / SUSE Labs SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746 GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend"orffer