This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Revisiting GCC's minimum MPFR version
- From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
- To: "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:21:21 +0100
- Subject: Re: Revisiting GCC's minimum MPFR version
- References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0712091701160.22215@caipclassic.rutgers.edu>
On Dec 9, 2007 11:05 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
> As requested by Richard G here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg00945.html
>
> I'm re-visiting during stage3 the minimum MPFR version required by GCC.
> At the time of the above post, mpfr-2.3.0 had not yet been released, but
> it was this past August, and one can obtain it here:
> http://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current
>
> The current situation is that GCC requires only mpfr-2.2.0, however it
> recommends mpfr-2.2.1 in the documentation and configure checks. (If
> configure find 2.2.0, it will say something like "buggy but acceptable"
> and continue bootstrapping).
>
> Also, there is some functionality for builtin bessel, remquo and gamma
> functions that is only active when mpfr-2.3.0 is available. The testcase
> gcc.dg/torture/builtin-math-4.c for these mpfr-2.3.0 functions is XFAILed
> at the moment.
>
>
> Our options include:
>
> 1. Do nothing. Things work, don't break it. Revisit again in stage1.
>
> 2. Continue accepting 2.2.0, but update the recommended version from
> 2.2.1 to 2.3.0. This would entail updating the configure warning,
> the docs and the removing the XFAIL from the testcase. This
> option would cause no change in hard bootstrap requirements.
>
> 3. In addtion to #2, hard fail for anything less than mpfr-2.3.0.
>
>
> I have no strong opinion on which way to go.
I would update the recommended version to 2.3.0 and fail for anything less
than 2.2.1.
Richard.