This is the mail archive of the
fortran@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.
Re: Including GMP/MPFR in GCC repository?
- From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha at arm dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>, kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:21:14 +0100
- Subject: Re: Including GMP/MPFR in GCC repository?
- References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0610062205240.2597@caipclassic.rutgers.edu> <452B11F1.8060406@codesourcery.com>
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 04:22, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> > Has there been any thought to including GMP/MPFR in the GCC repository
> > like we do for zlib and intl?
>
> I do not think we should be including more such packages in the GCC
> repository. It's complicated from an FSF perspective and it bloats our
> software. GCC is a complicated piece of software, and to build it you
> need a lot of stuff installed on your system. I think we should just
> accept that. :-)
>
> I think that making our build system more complicated, and adding more
> packages, with the goal of making life simpler for people building from
> source is deceptive. It doesn't seem particularly harder to build and
> install a few libraries and then install GCC. But, making our build
> system more complex gives us more ways to make mistakes. It also tempts
> us to add lots of configuration options for in-tree and "system"
> versions of the libraries, for building but not installing libraries, etc.
>
> I do think we should do is provide a known-good version (whether via a
> tag in some version control system, or via a tarball) of these libraries
> so that people can easily get versions that work.
>
> (For avoidance of doubt, the above statements are just my opinions as a
> GCC developer; they're in no way "official".)
I think there's a very important distinction that needs to be drawn
between a tool that needs to be installed to *build* gcc and a tool that
needs to be installed in order to *run* gcc. GMP/MPFR is needed for the
latter; and to date we have never relied on such an external component
that isn't part of the base installation of a system (such as libc).
What makes this worse is that a specific version of this package is
needed, so this can make upgrading/developing the compiler difficult
since other packages may be built and expect older versions. There was
major resistance to hard-coding the search path for the shared library
into the object file.
R.