Hi Richard, On Mon, 2014-11-24 12:53:11 +0100, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbg...@lug-owl.de> wrote: > > On Sat, 2014-11-22 14:33:29 +0100, Bernd Edlinger > > <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> wrote: > > > since r217627 we use an updated AutoMake "missing" script. However > > > that revealed a hidden bug in gmp-4.3.2's (up to gmp-6.0.0a) > > > configure script. That is: an in-tree gmp/configure fails now if > > > flex is missing. The gmp configure uses our missing flex script, > > > and previously that emitted an error message and created a dummy > > > lex.yy.c, The new version of that script does no longer create any > > > lex.yy.c. > > [...] > > > 2014-11-22 Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlin...@hotmail.de> > > > > > > * Makefile.def (module=gmp): Work around in-tree gmp configure > > > bug with missing flex. > > > * Makefile.in: Regenerated. > > > > Bernd and I discussed that patch; I'm all for it! Looks like that's > > the least-ugly thing we'd possibly come up with. > > I suppose it is fixed upstream now?
*cough* No. Not at all.
I subscribed to gmp-devel and sent a longish email with all the
details, just to get it rejected: gmp-devel seems to be used for
internal discussion between core developers. Re-sent it to
gmp-discuss, but no response there at all. So up to now, there's no
upstream change on the GMP side at all.
In the mean time, I received other emails about specific problematic
cases; the outcome there is that they're asking the GCC guys to not
recommend the old 4.3.2 release, but to use some modern version and
build it with --disable-assembly. Of course, that doesn't fix the
observed configure problem. (However, using a modern version sounds
like a fair request.)
MfG, JBG
--
Jan-Benedict Glaw jbg...@lug-owl.de +49-172-7608481
Signature of: Fortschritt bedeutet, einen Schritt so zu machen,
the second : daß man den nächsten auch noch machen kann.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
