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]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

Adrian Bunk wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:37:13PM +0200, Tobias SchlÃter wrote:
Markus Milleder wrote:
Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15:
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 .

Much harder ?

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.
This is moot because for the reason given above, these hypothetical regressions are restricted to gcc if the person building gcc is careful.

"careful" = uses an undocumented trick ?

Or where at is this documented?

Hm, maybe it's not. I'm too lazy to search through all the documentation of the GNU build system. While this may be written someplace, it would certainly be a good thing to generalize the paragraph about binutils in <>.

Anyway, if you're afraid of regressions nothing prevents you from building another mpfr out-of-tree (which is documented), and use that, so the point is still moot. If you use a static library there is no chance it will interfere with anything.

- Tobi

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