On 29.04.2016 09:46, Richard Biener wrote: > On Thu, 28 Apr 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > >> On 28.04.2016 16:29, Richard Biener wrote: >>> >>> Another option would be to try if mini-gmp is enough for our >>> (in-tree) use and what the performance impact would be if we'd >>> use that (in-tree). >>> >> >> Yes, we would certainly never need more than that subset. >> >> But I don't see how mpfr can be built with mini-gmp. >> I tried to and failed early in mpfr/configure. >> Any ideas? > > No idea - it of course breaks down if mpfr cannot work with mini-gmp. >
Yes, that's how it looks like. Frankly speaking, I think we should start testing with 6.1.0 (with -DNO_ASM of course, but that should be safe at least) and if anything goes wrong, we can still try to get it fixed in 6.1.1, as long as it is not yet released. Bernd.
