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 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
