On Monday October 6 2008 08:50:08 pm Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Steve Crosby wrote:
> > So Chapter 5 can be inline with GCC (which builds static by default)
> > or seperate but static, and Chapter 6 can be shared or static as you
> > prefer.
>
> After thinking about this all day, I tend to think this
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Steve Crosby wrote:
>
>> So Chapter 5 can be inline with GCC (which builds static by default)
>> or seperate but static, and Chapter 6 can be shared or static as you
>> prefer.
>
> After thinking about this all day, I tend to think this is the
> way to go. Build GMP and MP
Steve Crosby wrote:
> So Chapter 5 can be inline with GCC (which builds static by default)
> or seperate but static, and Chapter 6 can be shared or static as you
> prefer.
After thinking about this all day, I tend to think this is the
way to go. Build GMP and MPFR inline with GCC (static) in
Chap
>>> DJ Lucas wrote:
>>>
I do not have all the details in front of me, but somebody said that gcc
failed if gmp was not on the host in pass1. Greg pointed us to a DIY
thread that showed how to build with GCC. There was no _need_ to build
inline beyond that point, because that f
DJ Lucas wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
>> DJ Lucas wrote:
>>
>>> I do not have all the details in front of me, but somebody said that gcc
>>> failed if gmp was not on the host in pass1. Greg pointed us to a DIY
>>> thread that showed how to build with GCC. There was no _need_ to build
>>>
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> DJ Lucas wrote:
>
>> I do not have all the details in front of me, but somebody said that gcc
>> failed if gmp was not on the host in pass1. Greg pointed us to a DIY
>> thread that showed how to build with GCC. There was no _need_ to build
>> inline beyond that poin
DJ Lucas wrote:
> I do not have all the details in front of me, but somebody said that gcc
> failed if gmp was not on the host in pass1. Greg pointed us to a DIY
> thread that showed how to build with GCC. There was no _need_ to build
> inline beyond that point, because that fixed the problem
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I know I'm jumping in a little bit late here, but I'm having trouble
> spotting where this discussion took place and I'd appreciate a cluebat.
>
> I'm just curious, what was the rationale behind building gmp and mpfr in
> different manners within the same boo
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> Just for the record, I know guile can use an external libgmp:
>
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=guile.git;a=blob;f=configure.in;h=e67e1d84;hb=HEAD#l820
>
> Google shows that clamav and openswan use it, too. I don't know if
> that's compelling enough, but I thought
> Philipp Christian Loewner wrote:
>> From what I understand about it, building GMP and MPFR as separate
>> packages is the preferred method, but the bootstrap build will fail
>> to locate these programs in the /tools directory in the first stage.
>
> Hmmm. I read through that thread already, but
Dan Nicholson wrote:
>> * Only GCC needs them.
>
> Just for the record, I know guile can use an external libgmp:
>
> http://git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=guile.git;a=blob;f=configure.in;h=e67e1d84;hb=HEAD#l820
>
> Google shows that clamav and openswan use it, too. I don't know if
> that's comp
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 10:51:15 -0500
Randy McMurchy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> However, in Chapter 6 I know I wouldn't like to see statically
> linked GMP and MPFR in GCC as I build them later on and it seems
> silly to have a package statically linked in GCC and all other
> packages link dynamica
On Mon, Oct 6, 2008 at 8:55 AM, Jeremy Huntwork
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Philipp Christian Loewner wrote:
>> From what I understand about it, building GMP and MPFR as separate
>> packages is the preferred method, but the bootstrap build will fail
>> to locate these programs in the /tools direc
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> * GCC has a mechanism built in to build them and use them the way it
> needs to. If we would just let it build them, then there's that much
> less possibility of breakage due to misconfiguration.
>
> * I don't know if I particularly want to have two extra libs insta
Randy McMurchy wrote:
> I believe most of the information he has was determined by
> seeing what was going on over at DIY. I know that they discussed
> it a bit over there. You may want to check the DIY archives.
Well, DIY lets GCC build them internally on all passes. When I posted, I
was already
Philipp Christian Loewner wrote:
> From what I understand about it, building GMP and MPFR as separate
> packages is the preferred method, but the bootstrap build will fail
> to locate these programs in the /tools directory in the first stage.
Yes, that brings back things I remember. Thanks, Phil
Philipp Christian Loewner wrote:
> From what I understand about it, building GMP and MPFR as separate
> packages is the preferred method, but the bootstrap build will fail
> to locate these programs in the /tools directory in the first stage.
Hmmm. I read through that thread already, but I didn't
Jeremy Huntwork wrote:
> I know I'm jumping in a little bit late here, but I'm having trouble
> spotting where this discussion took place and I'd appreciate a cluebat.
I'm not sure it was ever discussed. DJ went out on his own and
built a version of the book that we've since sort of adopted as
t
On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 17:17:01 +0200, Jeremy Huntwork
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm just curious, what was the rationale behind building gmp and mpfr in
> different manners within the same book? To be more specific, why let
> GCC build them internally for its own use on GCC pass1 and then bui
19 matches
Mail list logo
