Re: Including GMP as an upstream package (was problems building fortran)

["Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>]

 > From: Roger Sayle <roger@eyesopen.com>
 > 
 > In addition to you, me and Kaveh, I believe Richard Henderson and
 > Joseph Myers are also in favour of at least investigating gmp's mpfr
 > as a replacement or subroutine library providing functionality for
 > real.c/real.h.  Presumably Paul Brook and Toon would also favour
 > including gmp with GCC to simplify gfortan issues.  Though hopefully
 > these and others can publically lend support to such a proposal in
 > this thread (or correct any misunderstaing/misrepresentation of mine).
 > 
 > Presumably Torbjorn must first give his permission, and then the SC or
 > perhaps just a single global-write priviledge maintainer must
 > (pre)approve a patch to place it in CVS in gcc and src.  Finally, the
 > "configury" folks will need to wire it up appropriately to the build
 > process, and the usual portability testing as GMP then gets compiled
 > using the host compiler on GCC's numerous supported platforms.
 > 
 > Alas there is little I can contribute, except force of will:
 > Please?  Pretty please?
 > Roger

A couple of thoughts:

To clarify, I don't know that we need "permission" to include GMP in
so much as it is free software.  However I wouldn't want to proceed
without buy-in and advice (and perhaps volunteered labor) from GMP's
maintainer.

In an ideal world, it would also be good to have a GMP expert act as
local maintainer keeping things in-sync.  I don't know if Tege is
willing to assume any additional GCC responsibilities at this time.

However we could get started by just having a volunteer to perform the
first import and get it working initially.

Do we have any such volunteer(s) ?

--
Kaveh R. Ghazi			ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu