[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 25 May 2007, Tim Prince wrote:
I spent quite a while getting out of the tangle I got into when I built
mpfr and gmp with --disable-shared, leaving older incompatible shared
libraries in the path. No doubt, it can be made to work, but with
plenty of ways to go w
On Fri, 25 May 2007, Tim Prince wrote:
> I spent quite a while getting out of the tangle I got into when I built
> mpfr and gmp with --disable-shared, leaving older incompatible shared
> libraries in the path. No doubt, it can be made to work, but with
> plenty of ways to go wrong.
The above isn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However there are two existing options in the mean time:
One is build/install gmp/mpfr yourself and specify --disable-shared to
both. Then use --with-mpfr= to specify using them instead of the system's
shared versions.
The second is to drop gmp/mpfr into the top leve
> That just means that it's an application you care about. And now an
> upgrade of MPFR which fixes bugs will require you to rebuild the
> compiler.
Exactly. By design. What goes in the system compiler should be closely
scrutinized.
--
Eric Botcazou
On Fri, 25 May 2007, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 25 May 2007 15:34, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>
> Yes, hasn't this been one of the design goals of gcc for as long as any of
> us can remember? It wants to be able to bootstrap the GNU world on non-free
> systems from scratch and part of that is not requirin
On Fri, 25 May 2007, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 05:37:49PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > > I honestly don't know how to answer this question. Bootstrapping is an
> > > unrelated problem, and the compiler is not a vital runtime component
> > > of the system, so its depend
> Bootstrapping GCC on a system is something that would be solved by
> placing GMP and MPFR in the build tree (as has been proposed), and once
> they are built as part of the usual bootstrap, it is irrelevant whether
> they are linked statically or dynamically. On the other hand, when one
> is dis
> I honestly don't know how to answer this question. Bootstrapping is an
> unrelated problem, and the compiler is not a vital runtime component
> of the system, so its dependencies do not need to be exceptionally
> robust in the way that glibc's or even libstdc++'s do.
A compiler is a "second ord
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 05:37:49PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > I honestly don't know how to answer this question. Bootstrapping is an
> > unrelated problem, and the compiler is not a vital runtime component
> > of the system, so its dependencies do not need to be exceptionally
> > robust in th
Dave Korn wrote:
On 25 May 2007 15:34, Eric Botcazou wrote:
It's no different than any other library used by any other program.
I wouldn't object to configure support to request static gmp/mpfr for
developer convenience, but GCC is a perfectly normal dynamically
linked program and should behave
On 25 May 2007 15:34, Eric Botcazou wrote:
>> It's no different than any other library used by any other program.
>> I wouldn't object to configure support to request static gmp/mpfr for
>> developer convenience, but GCC is a perfectly normal dynamically
>> linked program and should behave like on
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 04:33:56PM +0200, Eric Botcazou wrote:
> > It's no different than any other library used by any other program.
> > I wouldn't object to configure support to request static gmp/mpfr for
> > developer convenience, but GCC is a perfectly normal dynamically
> > linked program an
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 07:10:23AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I just noticed a problem with our use of GMP and MPFR. If you
> carefully install the appropriate versions of GMP and MPFR on one
> machine in the normal way, and build gcc on that machine,
> cc1/cc1plus/etc. wind up dynamically l
> It's no different than any other library used by any other program.
> I wouldn't object to configure support to request static gmp/mpfr for
> developer convenience, but GCC is a perfectly normal dynamically
> linked program and should behave like one IMO.
How a compiler can be "a perfectly norma
On 5/25/07, Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 07:10:23AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> We need a configure time option to link statically against GMP and
> MPFR even if dynamic versions of the libraries are available.
>
> I would argue that static linking sho
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 07:10:23AM -0700, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> We need a configure time option to link statically against GMP and
> MPFR even if dynamic versions of the libraries are available.
>
> I would argue that static linking should be the default, since that is
> the least surprising o
On 25 May 2007 15:10, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
> I would argue that static linking should be the default, since that is
> the least surprising option. People who understand the issues can
> enable dynamic linking.
And besides, wasn't it the case that one of the main points in defence of
addi
17 matches
Mail list logo
