On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Bernd Edlinger wrote: > 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.
Fair enough - I'm fine with your latest patch then unless somebody objects soon. Does it fix any reported PRs? If so, please mention them in the ChangeLog entries. I've up-lodaed GMP 6.1.0 as well now. Thanks, Richard.
