On Wednesday 02 March 2005 02:37, Marcin Dalecki wrote: > After trying to build the fortran compiler I'm convinced that at a cut > down version of the multi precision libraries it requires should be > included > in to the compiler tree. The reasons are as follows: > > 1. They should be there for reference in bug checking. > 2. This would make installation on systems which don't fall in to the > category of > JBLD (Joe Users Bloated Linux Distro) much easier. > 3. Stuff not required for the proper operation of the compiler could be > taken out. > It's actually just a tinny subset of the library, which the compiler > truly required.
I'm not sure I believe that. IIRC we [gfortran] use a good proportion of the functionality provided by mpfr. If we don't, we probably should... > 4. It would see just to be consequent in face of a copy of the zip > library./ > 5. It would make it easier to guarantee that the source code setup > choices between what the > fortran compiler expects and how the library was build match. The difficulties of convincing the gmp configuration to do what gcc wants is one of the reasons why it hasn't been integrated yet. At least one person has tried and failed. > 6. Since there are multiple releases of the libraries in question this > would just reduce > the combinatorial complexity of the maintainance issues. You forgot to attach the patch implementing all the above. I agree that we want to include the libraries. However putting a modified version of a third party library in the gcc tree is a bad idea. If possible we should include the upstream version unchanged. We [I] don't want to have to maintain a separate copy when upstream authors already do that much better. If changes are required these should be incorporated by pushing the changes to upstream packages and resyncing, not by maintaining them locally. Paul
