This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
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:
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.
Much harder ?
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 .
I don't think anybody who tries to build GCC from source will have any
problem building MPFR first.
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 http://gcc.gnu.org/install/ 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 <http://gcc.gnu.org/install/download.html>.
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.