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

From: Ben Elliston <bje at au1 dot ibm dot com>
To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk at stusta dot de>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:36:26 +1100
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0810042125450.1560@caipclassic.rutgers.edu> <20081006131832.GD25182@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> <E405FD048D3044229595A427AD37B777@glap>

On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 16:10 -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:

> The last time this came up, the consensus was that we should not hard fail 
> the configure script even if the user would then be missing some mpfr bugfix 
> in the latest/greatest release.  That's why we have the minimum/recommended 
> split.

Doesn't this mean that we can then have two different versions of GCC
(as identified by gcc --version), linked with different mpfr libraries,
that may exhibit different behaviour?

Ben

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)
  - From: Andrew Pinski

References:
- [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortran bits)
  - From: Kaveh R. GHAZI
- Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortran bits)
  - From: Adrian Bunk
- Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)
  - From: Kaveh R. Ghazi

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