Re: [PATCH]: GMP/MPFR in-tree build instructions [Was: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)]

From: "Tobias Schlüter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] and @option{--with-gmp-include}. Alternatively, +if a GMP source ditribution is found in a subdirectory of you GCC +sources named @file{gmp}, it will be built together with [EMAIL PROTECTED] +Library is not installed in your default

Re: [PATCH]: GMP/MPFR in-tree build instructions [Was: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)]

Gerald Pfeifer wrote: On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Tobias Schlüter wrote: I'll take care of this, provided Gerald approves the change. Gerald, if you think that copyright is a problem, I'll gladly rephrase it. Thanks for the change, it looks like a good one. You may want to make one or the other adj

Re: [PATCH]: GMP/MPFR in-tree build instructions [Was: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)]

On Tue, 14 Oct 2008, Tobias Schlüter wrote: > I'll take care of this, provided Gerald approves the change. Gerald, if > you think that copyright is a problem, I'll gladly rephrase it. Thanks for the change, it looks like a good one. You may want to make one or the other adjustment for extra saf

Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

Nils Pipenbrinck wrote: > Cygwin comes with a GCC 3.4.somewhat out of the box. To compile MPFR you > need a 4.1 compiler. So you have to double compiling everything. And I don't know where you get that assertion but it's not true. mpfr built with gcc 3.4 works just fine and passes all tests in

Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

On 2008-10-15 04:45:25 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2008-10-14 14:19:22 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Cygwin comes with a GCC 3.4.somewhat out of the box. To compile > > > MPFR you need a 4.1 compiler. So

Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

On 2008-10-14 14:19:22 -0700, Andrew Pinski wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cygwin comes with a GCC 3.4.somewhat out of the box. To compile > > MPFR you need a 4.1 compiler. So you have to double compiling > > everything. And worse: You ha

RE: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

Nils Pipenbrinck wrote on 14 October 2008 21:29: > Markus Milleder wrote: >> I don't think anybody who tries to build GCC from source will have any >> problem building MPFR first. >> > Not entirely true: > > Those of us who use cygwin and want to use the latest GCC have to first > compile a non

Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Cygwin comes with a GCC 3.4.somewhat out of the box. To compile MPFR you > need a 4.1 compiler. So you have to double compiling everything. And worse: > You have to know that you have to do this. There is no information

Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

Andrew Pinski wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Not entirely true: Those of us who use cygwin and want to use the latest GCC have to first compile a non MPFR GCC (e.g. 4.1.x) before they can compile the latest GPFR and link GCC to it.

Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 1:28 PM, Nils Pipenbrinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not entirely true: > > Those of us who use cygwin and want to use the latest GCC have to first > compile a non MPFR GCC (e.g. 4.1.x) before they can compile the latest GPFR > and link GCC to it. I don't really see any

Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

Markus Milleder wrote: I don't think anybody who tries to build GCC from source will have any problem building MPFR first. Not entirely true: Those of us who use cygwin and want to use the latest GCC have to first compile a non MPFR GCC (e.g. 4.1.x) before they can compile the latest GPFR

Re: [PATCH]: GMP/MPFR in-tree build instructions [Was: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)]

Matt Fago wrote: I and several other people have been bit by this, and I am currently trying to help someone else build gcc with gmp/mpfr. It seems to me that the easiest thing to do is an in-tree build -- it would be great if it were documented. How about something like the below? While genera

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

Adrian Bunk wrote: On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:37:13PM +0200, Tobias Schlüter wrote: Markus Milleder wrote: Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15: E.g. the next stable release of Debian will likely ship with 2.3.1 . So in this specific case fulfilling a 2.3.1 requirement would be easy, whi

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:37:13PM +0200, Tobias Schlüter wrote: > Markus Milleder wrote: >> Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15: >>> E.g. the next stable release of Debian will likely ship with 2.3.1 . >>> So in this specific case fulfilling a 2.3.1 requirement would be easy, >>> while a 2.

Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:23:48PM +0200, Markus Milleder wrote: > Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15: >... > > And upgrading from 2.3.1 to let's say 3.0.0 might be a bad choice if > > the new version contains regressions. > > That's why I said "before branching", this gives a time window

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

Markus Milleder wrote: Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15: E.g. the next stable release of Debian will likely ship with 2.3.1 . So in this specific case fulfilling a 2.3.1 requirement would be easy, while a 2.3.2 requirement would make it much harder to build gcc 4.4 . Much harder ? I

Re: Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 02:23:48PM +0200, Markus Milleder wrote: > Much harder ? > > I don't think anybody who tries to build GCC from source will have any > problem building MPFR first. It is certainly an awkward annoyance, especially when you occassionally need to build gcc on many different bo

Antwort: Re: Antwort: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

Adrian Bunk schrieb am 13.10.2008 17:41:15: > On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 04:42:08PM +0200, Markus Milleder wrote: > > Is there any reason not to demand 2.3.2 for GCC 4.4 ? Or even the > newest MPFR version published before creating the GCC 4.4 release > branch (which could be 2.3.3) ? > > Upgrading

Re: Antwort: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 04:42:08PM +0200, Markus Milleder wrote: > Vincent Lefevre schrieb am 13.10.2008 16:16:38: > > > On 2008-10-07 21:42:30 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > > But is there any "need to upgrade" to 2.3.2 since it would fix a bug > > > gcc ran into? > > > > FYI, GCC can be affected

Antwort: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

Vincent Lefevre schrieb am 13.10.2008 16:16:38: > On 2008-10-07 21:42:30 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > But is there any "need to upgrade" to 2.3.2 since it would fix a bug > > gcc ran into? > > FYI, GCC can be affected by some bugs in MPFR 2.3.0, amongst the bugs > All these bugs were fixed in

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

On 2008-10-07 21:42:30 +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote: > But is there any "need to upgrade" to 2.3.2 since it would fix a bug > gcc ran into? FYI, GCC can be affected by some bugs in MPFR 2.3.0, amongst the bugs listed on . I think that the bugs in question are:

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

On Mon, Oct 06, 2008 at 04:10:04PM -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > From: "Adrian Bunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 09:33:48PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: >>> Since we're in stage3, I'm raising the issue of the MPFR version we >>> require for GCC, just as in last year's stage3 f

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 4:36 PM, Ben Elliston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 16:10 -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > >> The last time this came up, the consensus was that we should not hard fail >> the configure script even if the user would then be missing some mpfr bugfix >> in th

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 16:10 -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > The last time this came up, the consensus was that we should not hard fail > the configure script even if the user would then be missing some mpfr bugfix > in the latest/greatest release. That's why we have the minimum/recommended > sp

Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits)

From: "Adrian Bunk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 09:33:48PM -0400, Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote: Since we're in stage3, I'm raising the issue of the MPFR version we require for GCC, just as in last year's stage3 for gcc-4.3: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2007-12/msg00298.html I'd like to in