This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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: Including GMP/MPFR in GCC repository?

From: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini at gnu dot org>
To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:28:14 +0200
Subject: Re: Including GMP/MPFR in GCC repository?
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0610062205240.2597@caipclassic.rutgers.edu> <452B11F1.8060406@codesourcery.com> <20061010041248.GA18231@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <200610101251.k9ACptV32008@makai.watson.ibm.com> <20061010140433.GA21197@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>

No. I am not volunteering to maintain zlib.  If you reread the
first 7 words, you'll note that I'm suggesting that zlib and
intl should be removed.  Why shouldn't these libraries be treated
the same as gmp and mpfr?

... and infoZIP, which is now required to build libjava.

Interestingly, other GNU projects (including bison) are no longer distributing intl. So, I think I agree that zlib and libintl should not be distributed.

One point in favor of distributing gmp is that (according to its maintainers) it's an incredible stress test for GCC, and a lot of .0 GCC versions are known to miscompile it.

Paolo

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Including GMP/MPFR in GCC repository?
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

References:
- Including GMP/MPFR in GCC repository?
  - From: Kaveh R. GHAZI
- Re: Including GMP/MPFR in GCC repository?
  - From: Mark Mitchell
- Re: Including GMP/MPFR in GCC repository?
  - From: Steve Kargl
- Re: Including GMP/MPFR in GCC repository?
  - From: David Edelsohn
- Re: Including GMP/MPFR in GCC repository?
  - From: Steve Kargl

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