ni...@lysator.liu.se (Niels Möller) skribis: > l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > >> For me/us, the best workflow would be to have a Gnulib module. That >> way, whenever GMP developers fix a bug in mini-gmp, we automatically get >> the fix when running “gnulib-tool --update”. > > I guess you can do whatever you want in gnulib. But it should be made > very clear that the gmp repo is the "official" version. Some gmp > developers would be upset if a mini-gmp version in gnulib starts to > diverge.
Yes, sure. There are cases where Gnulib contains copies of code actually maintained elsewhere, such as in glibc. I’ll check with the Gnulib folks whether/how such an arrangement could be made. >> What about the maintenance overhead for GMP developers? I mean, of >> those 5000 lines, most are copied from GMP, right? > > Not really. Some of that code is of course copied from various other gmp > files, but a lot of it is written from scratch, giving priority to > simplicity over performance. OK. >> So, bugs found in GMP may have to be fixed in mini-GMP too, for >> instance. > > That's possible, but I don't think it's likely to be a big problem. I'd > expect the typical bug in mini-gmp to be in the code which is *not* > copied from other GMP files. And I'd expect the typical bug in gmp to be > in complex algorithms or assembly code, which doesn't have any > counterpart in mini-gmp. Right. > mini-gmp does have a reasonable testsuite, even if it's not as thorough > as the main gmp testsuite. And mini-gmp is used in a normal gmp build > (via bootstrap.c), for computing various tables used by the main gmp > code. So the gmp project itself also depends on mini-gmp. OK, good to know. ;-) Thanks! Ludo’.
