This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH] Fix web/60933
- From: Richard Biener <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Rainer Orth <ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, Jakub Jelinek <jakub at redhat dot com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 10:37:35 +0200 (CEST)
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix web/60933
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <alpine dot LSU dot 2 dot 11 dot 1404241011080 dot 18709 at zhemvz dot fhfr dot qr> <yddr44n16b0 dot fsf at lokon dot CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld dot DE>
On Thu, 24 Apr 2014, Rainer Orth wrote:
> Richard Biener <rguenther@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 The GMP people complained that we "advertise" outdated versions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 <rguenther@suse.de>
SUSE / SUSE Labs
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg - AG Nuernberg - HRB 16746
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend"orffer