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 02:23:48PM +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
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
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
13 matches
Mail list logo
