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 MPFR 2.3.1. AFAIK, MPFR 2.3.2 should > not make any difference for GCC. The fixed bugs are listed here: This seems to call for MPFR 2.3.1 as a minimum version for GCC 4.4 However, let me ask the reverse question: 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) ? Markus Milleder
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 can cause the user some unneeded work. > > 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 don't think anybody who tries to build GCC from source will have any problem building MPFR first. I can see how a distribution will probably want to have at least the MPFR version GCC demands, which would force an MPFR upgrade to accompany a GCC 4.4 package. > 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 to detect such regressions. While the cutoff date for moving to a new revision of MPFR may be somewhat earlier, my idea was to demand a rather current revision. Changing to 3.0.0 - which implies much larger changes than 2.3.3 - is IMHO stage 1 material, maybe stage 2 if the release notes make it exceedingly clear that the major version change is only because of major new features, with no changes to existing ones. Markus Milleder
Antwort: Re: Size of the GCC repository
Paolo Carlini wrote: > Paolo Carlini wrote: > > Well, not normally, yesterday wanted to have something working as soon > > as possible and 5G more (vs the docs) meant hours for me :( Today will > > apply a wwwdocs patchlet as obvious. > > > This. > > Paolo. > -The whole repository takes over 12G of disk space, > +The whole repository currently takes about 17G of disk space, Or better ? +The whole repository takes about 17G of disk space at the start +of 2009, growing about 3G per year. Markus Milleder PS: Raw data from the CVS history of rsync.html, the growth is from the last 2 numbers: 09.03.2001 0,45 02.12.2002 0,95 14.06.2003 1,20 13.05.2005 2,80 28.10.2005 7,80 18.06.2007 12,00 22.01.2009 17,00
