This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)
On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 04:10:04PM -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> From: "Adrian Bunk" <bunk@stusta.de>
>
>> 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 increase the "minimum" MPFR version to 2.3.0, (which has been
>>> released since Aug 2007). The "recommended" version of MPFR can be
>>> bumped
>>> to the latest which is 2.3.2.
>>> ...
>>
>> Considering that your patch removes the conditionals on MPFR versions
>> from the code (good!), is there any reason for gcc to keep this unusual
>> minimum/recommended split in the requirement?
>>
>> Either 2.3.0 is good enough, or 2.3.2 contains some critical fix
>> and should be the minimum version.
>
> 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 split.
I see the point for the 2.2.1/2.3.0 versions since 2.3.0 introduced
additional functionality gcc can use.
> But I see no reason not to encourage people and/or make them aware of the
> need to upgrade if they are so inclined. Whether a particular fix is
> "critical" can be in the eye of the beholder.
But is there any "need to upgrade" to 2.3.2 since it would fix a bug gcc
ran into?
IMHO it's not "in the eye of the beholder" whether 2.3.2 contains a
"critical" fix _for usage by gcc_.
> --Kaveh
cu
Adrian
--
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed