This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug other/29405] GCC should include latest GMP/MPFR sources and always build libgmp.a/libmpfr.a
- From: "vincent at vinc17 dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 10 Oct 2006 13:53:10 -0000
- Subject: [Bug other/29405] GCC should include latest GMP/MPFR sources and always build libgmp.a/libmpfr.a
- References: <bug-29405-578@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #3 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2006-10-10 13:53 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> What's worrying me a bit is the versioning of MPFR.
Note that GMP is similar.
> Vincent, would it be possible that some version number is increased every
> time a patch is posted, so that the current version would be 2.2.16 or
> something like that?
There has been a very short discussion about that last year:
http://sympa.loria.fr/wwsympa/arc/mpfr/2005-12/msg00049.html
The problem is that it is not that simple. First, for some reasons, not all
patches committed to the 2.2 branch are put on the 2.2.0 web page, so that the
future 2.2.1 version will not just be 2.2.0 + the patches provided on the web
page. We could provide another way to identify the patches, but as said in the
cited URL, this could be done only as of MPFR 2.3.0 (possibly except if one
decides just to add a macro to mpfr.h for this purpose). The main problem is
that one may want to apply some patches, but not others, or identify builds
from the Subversion repository... For instance, the macro could contain a group
of tags (e.g. the name of the patches and possibly some other information). But
how would this macro be used by gcc and other software? Would a group of tags
be useful, or too complex?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29405