This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)
- From: Tobias Schlüter <Tobias dot Schlueter at physik dot uni-muenchen dot de>
- To: Markus Milleder <markus dot milleder at generali dot at>
- Cc: bunk at stusta dot de, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>, vincent+gcc at vinc17 dot org
- Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:37:13 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)
- References: <OFC84C70D0.DFCC377F-ONC12574E2.0042BFBE-C12574E2.00441902@AT.TOP.COM>
Markus Milleder wrote:
Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15:
Much harder ?
E.g. the next stable release of Debian will likely ship with 2.3.1 .
So in this specific case fulfilling a 2.3.1 requirement would be easy,
while a 2.3.2 requirement would make it much harder to build gcc 4.4 .
I don't think anybody who tries to build GCC from source will have any
problem building MPFR first.
They don't even need to do this, as mpfr can be built in-tree. It then
also won't interfere with a system-wide mpfr.
I can see how a distribution will probably want to have at least the
MPFR version GCC demands, which would force an MPFR upgrade to
accompany a GCC 4.4 package.
And upgrading from 2.3.1 to let's say 3.0.0 might be a bad choice if
the new version contains regressions.
This is moot because for the reason given above, these hypothetical
regressions are restricted to gcc if the person building gcc is careful.