This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Fix web/60933

Richard Biener <> 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 The GMP people complained that we "advertise" outdated versions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.

For the 4.9 branch, we should leave this as is: the benefit is almost
certainly not worth the trouble.


Rainer Orth, Center for Biotechnology, Bielefeld University

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]