From: "Allan McRae"
I have noticed that mpc is not automatically detected even when
installed in the standard library path (with gcc-4.5-20090604). This
means that building with mpc always requires using the
--with-mpc-lib=/usr/lib flag.
This is fixed by adjusting configure{.ac} to have:
m
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
1. Consider MPC as an optional library now, install all the code and make
it hard-required only when all the complex math functions are made
available in a future released version of the lib
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
>
> > 1. Consider MPC as an optional library now, install all the code and make
> > it hard-required only when all the complex math functions are made
> > available in a future released version of the library or sometime in
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> 1. Consider MPC as an optional library now, install all the code and make
> it hard-required only when all the complex math functions are made
> available in a future released version of the library or sometime in
> stage3, whichever is first.
I think this is
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> 1. Consider MPC as an optional library now, install all the code and make
> it hard-required only when all the complex math functions are made
> available in a future released version of the library or sometime in
> stage3, whichever is first.
> I prefer optio
Thanks Kaveh for taking care of this. The Fortran front-end will
really benefit from the use of MPC. Regarding your options, #1 seems
the most reasonable to me; I'm forwarding to the Fortran list to hear
to opinion of Fortran maintainers.
FX
On Tue, 5 May 2009, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I personally think relying on MPC is a reasonable choice, given the fact
> that (as you say) the language specifications do in some cases require
> support for these kinds of manipulations of complex numbers at compile-time.
>
> In the past, however, othe
Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
> I didn't hear back from anyone opposing (or supporting!) MPC. Does that
> mean it's no longer controversial? Hopefully I've addressed the
> outstanding issues raised.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2009-04/msg00741.html
I personally think relying on MPC is a reasonable c
On Tue, 28 Apr 2009, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
> From: "Mark Mitchell"
>
> > That is not a decision, however, on whether using MPC is or is not a
> > good idea. There have been objections raised to MPC, on the grounds
> > that it may not build on all host systems, or that the costs it brings
> > in
From: "Mark Mitchell"
That is not a decision, however, on whether using MPC is or is not a
good idea. There have been objections raised to MPC, on the grounds
that it may not build on all host systems, or that the costs it brings
in terms of complexity of building GCC outweigh its benefits. W
At Kaveh's request, the SC has considered whether or not GCC can rely
upon the MPC library. As Kaveh knows (as an SC member) the SC has
reviewed this decision and does not feel that the SC or the FSF need to
explicitly permit the use of a library whose license is compatible with
GPLv3, even if the
11 matches
Mail list logo
