build failure, GMP not available

Hi Kaveh, Since your patch r117933 | ghazi | 2006-10-21 06:58:13 -0700 (Sat, 21 Oct 2006) | 16 lines * configure.in: Require GMP-4.1+ and MPFR-2.2+. Don't check need_gmp anymore. I'm getting configure

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 09:57 -0800, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > Hi Kaveh, > > 1. Is this intentional? Yes, do you read any of the mailing lists? > > 2. Is it supposed to apply to the host, the target, or both? HOST. > > 3. If it's intentional, what is the list of platforms that you > intended

Re: build failure, GMP not available

4. Are you aware that the GMP home page says [2006-05-04] GMP does not build on MacInteltosh machines. No fix planned for GMP 4.x. and indeed it does not appear to build correctly when configured on my MacBook Pro? Errr, well, I have installed the version from macports on my macbook pro, and i

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 30/10/2006, at 10:34 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote: 4. Are you aware that the GMP home page says [2006-05-04] GMP does not build on MacInteltosh machines. No fix planned for GMP 4.x. and indeed it does not appear to build correctly when configured on my MacBook Pro? Errr, well, I have installe

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 10/30/06, Geoffrey Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 30/10/2006, at 10:34 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote: >> 4. Are you aware that the GMP home page says >> >> [2006-05-04] GMP does not build on MacInteltosh machines. No fix >> planned for GMP 4.x. >> >> and indeed it does not appear to build c

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > Hi Kaveh, > > Since your patch > > > r117933 | ghazi | 2006-10-21 06:58:13 -0700 (Sat, 21 Oct 2006) | 16 > lines > > * configure.in: Require GMP-4.1+ and MPFR-2.2+. Don

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > 5. Are you aware that the GMP home page says > > Note that we chose not to work around all new GCC bugs in this > release. Never forget to do make check after building the library > to make likely it was not miscompiled! > > and therefore this libra

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > > Also, although I experience no regressions, i'll point out that there > > is no automated tested for macintel darwin that posts to > > gcc-testresults, which does not bode well for something you would like > > to be a primary platform. > > You are n

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 30/10/2006, at 1:24 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote: Also, although I experience no regressions, i'll point out that there is no automated tested for macintel darwin that posts to gcc-testresults, which does not bode well for something you would li

Re: build failure, GMP not available

One more thing, I initially went down the road of including the GMP/ MPFR sources in the gcc tree and building them as part of the bootstrap process. But the consensus was not to do that: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg00167.html I think the problem is that Mark also said I do think we

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > > I'd like to point out that the powerpc-darwin reports we were getting > > from the regression tester prior to this requirement were not > > including gfortran results: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2006-10/msg01062.html > > > > One of th

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > > One more thing, I initially went down the road of including the GMP/ > > MPFR > > sources in the gcc tree and building them as part of the bootstrap > > process. But the consensus was not to do that: > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2006-10/msg001

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 2006-10-30, at 21:37, Daniel Berlin wrote: Honestly, I don't know any mac people who *don't* use either fink or macports to install unix software when possible, because pretty much everything has required some small patch or another. I guess you are joking? Marcin Dalecki

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Oct 30, 2006, at 1:55 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: Copies of the correct sources were put in: ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/ mrs $ bunzip2 ? :-( I just installed the broken one and didn't worry about it. I'm sure it'll come back to bite me. I wish the mpfr people could be swa

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Mike Stump wrote: > mrs $ patch -p1 --dry-run < ~/Desktop/mpfr-2.2.0-cumulative.patch Because the patch is the concatenation of 16 successive fixes for individual bugs (so contains more than one diff to some files), --dry-run won't work with it. The patch should apply fine

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 10/30/06, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2006-10-30, at 21:37, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Honestly, I don't know any mac people who *don't* use either fink or > macports to install unix software when possible, because pretty much > everything has required some small patch or another

Re: build failure, GMP not available

> > On 10/30/06, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 2006-10-30, at 21:37, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > Honestly, I don't know any mac people who *don't* use either fink or > > > macports to install unix software when possible, because pretty much > > > everything has required some

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Oct 30, 2006, at 4:55 PM, Mike Stump wrote: 3 out of 4 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file tests/texp2.c.rej ? I'm informed that --dry-run is broken... Very odd, so unfortunate.

Re: build failure, GMP not available

"Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > > > 5. Are you aware that the GMP home page says > > > > Note that we chose not to work around all new GCC bugs in this > > release. Never forget to do make check after building the library > > to make

Re: build failure, GMP not available

For what it's worth, I did a build on Mac OS X for Intel 10.4.8 last week, and had no problems building GMP 4.2.1 and mprf-2.2.0, with no special --target options. Maybe you have an old version of gmp in your default linker search path causing bad things to happen. I think if it's failing f

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 30/10/2006, at 5:31 PM, Shantonu Sen wrote: For what it's worth, I did a build on Mac OS X for Intel 10.4.8 last week, and had no problems building GMP 4.2.1 and mprf-2.2.0, with no special --target options. Maybe you have an old version of gmp in your default linker search path causing

Re: build failure, GMP not available

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: I'm not sure I entirely agree with Mark's reasoning. It's true that we've always required a big set of tools to do development with gcc. And it's true that we require GNU make to be installed and working in order to build gcc. But this is the first time that we've ever

Re: build failure, GMP not available

Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I would strongly oppose downloading stuff during the build > process. We're not in the apt-get business; we can leave that to the > GNU/Linux distributions, the Cygwin distributors, etc. If you want to > build a KDE application, you have to first build/

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 30 Oct 2006 22:56:59 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm certainly not saying that we should pull out GMP and MPFR. But I am saying that we need to do much much better about making it easy for people to build gcc. Can't we just make it so that, if gmp/ amd mpfr/ directo

Re: build failure, GMP not available

Steven Bosscher wrote: On 30 Oct 2006 22:56:59 -0800, Ian Lance Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'm certainly not saying that we should pull out GMP and MPFR. But I am saying that we need to do much much better about making it easy for people to build gcc. Can't we just make it so that, if

Re: build failure, GMP not available

Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I would strongly oppose downloading stuff during the build process. We're not in the apt-get business; we can leave that to the GNU/Linux distributions, the Cygwin distributors, etc. If you want to build a KDE application, you h

Re: build failure, GMP not available

There is also "fink" (fink.sf.net), which i believe would provide a new enough gmp, but i am not positive. Yes, fink packages "gmp gmp-shlibs libmpfr1-dev libmpfr1-shlibs" provide all that is needed. Paolo

Re: build failure, GMP not available

I wouldn't object to that. It's a bit more build-system complexity, but if it makes it easier for people, then it's worth it. Actually, since we are at it, I would like to have toplevel configure automatically symlink "foo-1.2.3" to "foo". This way, untarring gmp/mpfr (and maybe also bison

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 31/10/2006, at 12:28 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Ian Lance Taylor wrote: Mark Mitchell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: I would strongly oppose downloading stuff during the build process. We're not in the apt-get business; we can leave that to the GNU/Linux distributions, the Cygwin distributors, e

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 2006-10-31, at 01:59, Daniel Berlin wrote: On 10/30/06, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 2006-10-30, at 21:37, Daniel Berlin wrote: > Honestly, I don't know any mac people who *don't* use either fink or > macports to install unix software when possible, because pretty much

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 10/31/06, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: This question is not related to the apparent instability and thus low quality of GMP/MPFR at all. This is the second time I see someone complain about GMP/MPFR instability. What is this complaint based on? We've used GMP in g95 and later g

Re: build failure, GMP not available

Ah, your "&&" did not indicate which command was failing. You can work around the issue with CFLAGS="-fno-common", which you probably want to do anyway if this code is ever linked in statically into libgfortran or something. However, it's just the test code that has this issue. You can al

Re: build failure, GMP not available

Geoffrey Keating wrote: OK, I agree: a native compiler, with no special options, isn't too hard. I don't think typing that sequence twice would be too hard either, though. :-) For something that's not too hard, it's sure causing me a lot of trouble... But, the trouble you're having is not

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 10:07:39PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: > I don't believe there's a serious problem with the concept, as long as > "./configure; make; make install" for GMP DTRT. If you can do it for > GCC, you can do it for a library it uses too. > > I would strongly oppose downloading

Re: build failure, GMP not available

> Because gcc is the first step in bringing up a new system.  Having > complex sets of dependencies makes people's lives harder.  I'm sure > we've all had the unpleasant experience of trying to build something > from the net only to discover that we had to build five other things > first. In my e

Re: build failure, GMP not available

Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] | We do want to make it as easy as we can make it to allow non-gurus to | build from source, because we'll get a lot more testing that way. That | said, I agree that an automatic download is inappropriate. | | However, if we detect at configure time th

Re: build failure, GMP not available

Mark Mitchell wrote: > I don't believe there's a serious problem with the concept, as long as > "./configure; make; make install" for GMP DTRT. If you can do it for > GCC, you can do it for a library it uses too. Just another data point. I tried building GMP on an i686-pc-linux-gnu Ubuntu sys

Re: build failure, GMP not available

Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Mark Mitchell wrote: > > > I don't believe there's a serious problem with the concept, as long as > > "./configure; make; make install" for GMP DTRT. If you can do it for > > GCC, you can do it for a library it uses too. > > Just another data point.

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On 31/10/2006, at 7:45 AM, Mark Mitchell wrote: Geoffrey Keating wrote: OK, I agree: a native compiler, with no special options, isn't too hard. I don't think typing that sequence twice would be too hard either, though. :-) For something that's not too hard, it's sure causing me a lot of

Re: build failure, GMP not available

> So, now if I tell you that despite all reports that it 'works fine', > I'm getting > > > FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-sin-mpfr-1.c -O0 (test for excess > > errors) > > do you think this is likely to be: > 1. some problem in gmp or mpfr, > 2. some problem in my build of gmp and/or mpfr, th

Re: build failure, GMP not available

> > > So, now if I tell you that despite all reports that it 'works fine', > > I'm getting > > > > > FAIL: gcc.dg/torture/builtin-sin-mpfr-1.c -O0 (test for excess > > > errors) > > > > do you think this is likely to be: > > 1. some problem in gmp or mpfr, > > 2. some problem in my build o

Re: build failure, GMP not available

Geoffrey Keating wrote: do you think this is likely to be: 1. some problem in gmp or mpfr, 2. some problem in my build of gmp and/or mpfr, that wouldn't occur if I'd built it in some other (unspecified) way, 3. some problem in my existing system configuration, maybe I already have a gmp instal

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Joe Buck wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 10:07:39PM -0800, Mark Mitchell wrote: > > I don't believe there's a serious problem with the concept, as long as > > "./configure; make; make install" for GMP DTRT. If you can do it for > > GCC, you can do it for a library it uses to

Re: build failure, GMP not available

"Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Should that message refer to this: > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/ > > or this: > ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gmp/ > http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/ > > or this (perhaps with more details): > http://gcc.gnu.org/install/prerequisites.html Th

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Oct 31, 2006, Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In my experience the first thing you do bringing up a new system is build a > cross compiler and use that to build glibc and coreutils/busybox. This is all > done on an established host that has gmp/mpfr ported to it. > Bootstrapping a nat

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > configure: error: Building GCC requires GMP 4.1+ and MPFR 2.2+. Try the > --with-gmp and/or --with-mpfr options. Indeed, as a user I ran into problems with this on a system where both of these actually were installed. This is because I had the run-t

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > Kaveh, would you mind looking into whether we could referine the autoconf > magic you added? Something like first checking for the libraries being > present, and then for headers, and in the case we've got the former but > not the latter issue an approp

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Ian Lance Taylor wrote: > "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Should that message refer to this: > > ftp://gcc.gnu.org/pub/gcc/infrastructure/ > > > > or this: > > ftp://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gmp/ > > http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/ > > > > or this (perhaps with mor

Re: build failure, GMP not available

I ended up including both your preference and mine. Hopefully one or other other (or both) end up being useful to users. Thanks, this will help with some of the questions I received internally today. -eric

Re: build failure, GMP not available

> Okay for mainline? Ok. src too, please. > 2006-11-06 Kaveh R. Ghazi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * configure.in: Robustify error message for missing GMP/MPFR. > > * configure: Regenerate.

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Tue, 7 Nov 2006, DJ Delorie wrote: > > Okay for mainline? > > Ok. src too, please. > Sorry, I don't have access to that repo. --Kaveh -- Kaveh R. Ghazi [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: > Do we have a GCC FAQ somewhere? Maybe we can add GMP/MPFR build problems > and solutions there. You can add your experiences to that collection. , but I believe increasing the "intelligence" of configure and documenting al

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Thu, 2 Nov 2006, Gerald Pfeifer wrote: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > > configure: error: Building GCC requires GMP 4.1+ and MPFR 2.2+. Try the > > --with-gmp and/or --with-mpfr options. > > Indeed, as a user I ran into problems with this on a system where both of > these act

Re: build failure, GMP not available

I have been struggling with this issue, and now that I have successfully built GCC I thought I would share my results. Hopefully it can help someone better versed in autotools to improve the build of GCC with GMP/MPFR. For reference, a few older threads I've found: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gc

Re: build failure, GMP not available

On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Matt Fago wrote: > I have been struggling with this issue, and now that I have > successfully built GCC I thought I would share my results. Hopefully > it can help someone better versed in autotools to improve the build > of GCC with GMP/MPFR. > > For reference, a few older th

Re: build failure, GMP not available

> Thanks for the report. I believe some of your issues can be addressed. > I'll add what I can to my TODO list. However I don't know if anything > will be done for the 4.1.x series given the restriction for regression > fixes only. I guess it depends on your definition of "regression", these > p

Re: build failure, GMP not available

>From: "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Matt Fago wrote: >> One issue here is that '--with-mpfr=path' assumes that 'libmpfr.a' is >> in 'path/lib' (not true for how I installed it), while '--with-mpfr- >> dir=path' assumes that 'libmpfr.a' is in 'path', rather than >> 'path/.libs' (can this

Re: build failure, GMP not available

Hi Kaveh, On Thu, 16 Nov 2006, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: > I'm wondering, can we can solve this with a better error message? That > should tickle enough brain cells to hopefully lower the chance of someone > being bit by this. Let me know your thoughts. yes, this definitely looks like a very good a