[RFC PATCH]: enable building GMP/MPFR in local tree
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
Mon Oct 9 17:48:00 GMT 2006
On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, Mike Stump wrote:
> On Oct 8, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> > It turned out to be much easier than I thought to decipher the top level
> > machinery and get GMP/MPFR building inside the GCC tree. :-)
>
> Some thoughts, if this configures and builds most (all?) of the time, then we
> are changing the portability profile of gcc to be min(gcc,mpfr,gmp) which
> could be < gcc. If the user has installed a newer gmp/mpfr on the system, do
> we want to use the build tree version anyway? Can we rm -rf gmp/mpfr from the
> source tree to disable the building of these? I suspect all the GMPLIBS and
> GMPINC stuff in the configure script is dead after this (with this version of
> the patch), though, it is probably better to leave it in there for now. What
Clearly --with-system-gmp --with-system-mpfr (like --with-system-zlib)
would be the natural way to enable using the system copies of these
libraries rather than building GCC's local copies. I expect Linux
distributors would use these options to link with the system shared
libraries. We do want to keep something like the existing --with-gmp
--with-mpfr options as well to say where the system copies are, if they
aren't in the default compiler / linker search paths.
> is the change in build time? Do we want to always build it, or only when some
> languages (fortran?) are configured? And lastly, do we want to do this in
> stage 3?
The patch is clearly something being proposed now for discussion and
potential commit in stage 1 or 2. While a proposal as a GCC 4.3 project
would have been a good idea (in fact, it might still make sense to create
a project page linked from
<http://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GCC_4.3_Release_Planning>), it's not such a big
project as to require such a proposal.
--
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com
More information about the Gcc
mailing list