From: Tobias Schlüter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and @option{--with-gmp-include}. Alternatively,
+if a GMP source ditribution is found in a subdirectory of you GCC
+sources named @file{gmp}, it will be built together with [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+Library is not installed in your default
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
I'll take care of this, provided Gerald approves the change. Gerald, if
you think that copyright is a problem, I'll gladly rephrase it.
Thanks for the change, it looks like a good one. You may want to make
one or the other adjustment for extra
Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
I'll take care of this, provided Gerald approves the change. Gerald, if
you think that copyright is a problem, I'll gladly rephrase it.
Thanks for the change, it looks like a good one. You may want to make
one or the other
Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 04:42:08PM +0200, Markus Milleder wrote:
snip
Is there any reason not to demand 2.3.2 for GCC 4.4 ? Or even the
newest MPFR version published before creating the GCC 4.4 release
branch (which could be 2.3.3) ?
Upgrading
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:37:13PM +0200, Tobias Schlüter wrote:
Markus Milleder wrote:
Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15:
E.g. the next stable release of Debian will likely ship with 2.3.1 .
So in this specific case fulfilling a 2.3.1 requirement would be easy,
while a 2.3.2
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:23:48PM +0200, Markus Milleder wrote:
Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15:
...
And upgrading from 2.3.1 to let's say 3.0.0 might be a bad choice if
the new version contains regressions.
That's why I said before branching, this gives a time window to detect
Markus Milleder wrote:
I don't think anybody who tries to build GCC from source will have any
problem building MPFR first.
Not entirely true:
Those of us who use cygwin and want to use the latest GCC have to first
compile a non MPFR GCC (e.g. 4.1.x) before they can compile the latest
GPFR
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not entirely true:
Those of us who use cygwin and want to use the latest GCC have to first
compile a non MPFR GCC (e.g. 4.1.x) before they can compile the latest GPFR
and link GCC to it.
I don't really see any issue
Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not entirely true:
Those of us who use cygwin and want to use the latest GCC have to first
compile a non MPFR GCC (e.g. 4.1.x) before they can compile the latest GPFR
and link GCC to it.
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cygwin comes with a GCC 3.4.somewhat out of the box. To compile MPFR you
need a 4.1 compiler. So you have to double compiling everything. And worse:
You have to know that you have to do this. There is no information
Markus Milleder wrote:
Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15:
E.g. the next stable release of Debian will likely ship with 2.3.1 .
So in this specific case fulfilling a 2.3.1 requirement would be easy,
while a 2.3.2 requirement would make it much harder to build gcc 4.4 .
Much harder ?
Nils Pipenbrinck wrote on 14 October 2008 21:29:
Markus Milleder wrote:
I don't think anybody who tries to build GCC from source will have any
problem building MPFR first.
Not entirely true:
Those of us who use cygwin and want to use the latest GCC have to first
compile a non MPFR GCC
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:23:48PM +0200, Markus Milleder wrote:
Much harder ?
I don't think anybody who tries to build GCC from source will have any
problem building MPFR first.
It is certainly an awkward annoyance, especially when you occassionally
need to build gcc on many different
On 2008-10-15 04:45:25 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
On 2008-10-14 14:19:22 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cygwin comes with a GCC 3.4.somewhat out of the box. To compile
MPFR you need a 4.1 compiler. So you have to
On 2008-10-14 14:19:22 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cygwin comes with a GCC 3.4.somewhat out of the box. To compile
MPFR you need a 4.1 compiler. So you have to double compiling
everything. And worse: You have to
Nils Pipenbrinck wrote:
Cygwin comes with a GCC 3.4.somewhat out of the box. To compile MPFR you
need a 4.1 compiler. So you have to double compiling everything. And
I don't know where you get that assertion but it's not true. mpfr built
with gcc 3.4 works just fine and passes all tests in
On 2008-10-07 21:42:30 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
But is there any need to upgrade to 2.3.2 since it would fix a bug
gcc ran into?
FYI, GCC can be affected by some bugs in MPFR 2.3.0, amongst the bugs
listed on http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-2.3.0/#fixed. I think that the
bugs in question are:
*
Vincent Lefevre schrieb am 13.10.2008 16:16:38:
On 2008-10-07 21:42:30 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
But is there any need to upgrade to 2.3.2 since it would fix a bug
gcc ran into?
FYI, GCC can be affected by some bugs in MPFR 2.3.0, amongst the bugs
snip bug list
All these bugs were fixed
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 04:42:08PM +0200, Markus Milleder wrote:
Vincent Lefevre schrieb am 13.10.2008 16:16:38:
On 2008-10-07 21:42:30 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
But is there any need to upgrade to 2.3.2 since it would fix a bug
gcc ran into?
FYI, GCC can be affected by some bugs in
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 04:10:04PM -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
From: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 09:33:48PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Since we're in stage3, I'm raising the issue of the MPFR version we
require for GCC, just as in last year's stage3 for gcc-4.3:
From: Adrian Bunk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 09:33:48PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
Since we're in stage3, I'm raising the issue of the MPFR version we
require for GCC, just as in last year's stage3 for gcc-4.3:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-12/msg00298.html
I'd like to
On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 16:10 -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
The last time this came up, the consensus was that we should not hard fail
the configure script even if the user would then be missing some mpfr bugfix
in the latest/greatest release. That's why we have the minimum/recommended
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Ben Elliston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 16:10 -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
The last time this came up, the consensus was that we should not hard fail
the configure script even if the user would then be missing some mpfr bugfix
in the
23 matches
Mail list logo
