From: "Steven Bosscher" <stevenb....@gmail.com>
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi <gh...@caip.rutgers.edu>
wrote:
If there are no objections, I'll create a patch.
Pffff... for those of us who just install the latest-and-greatest
fedora/suse/ubuntu/... once and don't change installations for two or
three years (stable machine, etc.) it becomes increasingly harder to
install all required libraries to build GCC...
Since GMP-4.2 is three years old, I had hoped it wouldn't be controversial.
I can see more of a case for mpfr-2.3.1 being too recent, but it's really
just a micro version bump over what we require now. I just checked and
ubuntu (v8.10) seems to offer gmp-4.2.2 and mpfr-2.3.2 through it's package
manager. What versions of GMP/MPFR do you get on your typical development
box and how old are your distros?
Is this really necessary? Do those bugs you speak about actually
cause trouble for GCC if you make it use MPC (which I'm also not too
happy about, fwiw)?
I don't know if you can expose these particular bugs through GCC. The issue
is that you can definitely see them in MPC through MPC testsuite failures if
you e.g. build MPC with mpfr-2.3.0. So MPC has a minimum MPFR version
requirement that it checks for during it's own configure time. I don't
think it's fair to ask MPC to lower its configure checks for building if
real bugs show up in their testsuite. We could keep lower GMP/MPFR version
requirements in GCC, but if we hard-require MPC then it's kind of moot cause
you'd have to get/build MPC somehow.
I'm still open to making MPC optional for a transition period. But others
have argued for making it hard-required. There are certainly valid reasons
both ways IMHO. But I think that's something for another thread. My hope
is that these version upgrades are reasonably simple.
--Kaveh
