This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Announce: MPFR 2.2.1 is released
> > I wish we could have similar requirements for GMP and MPFR, rather
> > than requiring the user to pre-install them on pretty much EVERY
> > computer.
>
> Do you mean that gcc should be distributed with GMP and MPFR libraries
> in the tarball? (There had been a discussion about including them or
> not in the Subversion repository, but I haven't seen one concerning
> the tarballs.)
Personally? At this point, I'm thinking it's the only sane thing to
do. There is currently NO platform that ships with the right
libraries to build ANY gcc language. Do we have a guarantee that MPFR
will build with all native toolchains? Do we really want to impose
this requirement on *all* users, not just maintainers? GCC used to be
one of the things you could install first, at least for C, now it's
way down the list.
At the very least, we should be configured so that we *could* have an
in-tree mpfr, should vendors choose to add it. Saving customers the
misery of figuring out how to build and install gmp/mpfr is the type
of value add they'd appreciate.