Kaveh R. GHAZI wrote:
>>> I would update the recommended version to 2.3.0 and fail for anything less
>>> than 2.2.1.
> Ok, here's my patch. Since we may have some developers still using 2.2.0,
> I'll wait say a week after approval before installing to give them time to
> upgrade.
> Ok for mainl
On Sun, 9 Dec 2007, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
>
> > I would update the recommended version to 2.3.0 and fail for anything less
> > than 2.2.1.
>
> I agree. Not optimizing bessel functions as builtins doesn't bother me
> too much, but we might as well move past the buggy versi
"Richard Guenther" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I would update the recommended version to 2.3.0 and fail for anything less
| than 2.2.1.
Yes, that makes sense to me.
I don't think we should require 2.3.0.
-- Gaby
Richard Guenther wrote:
> I would update the recommended version to 2.3.0 and fail for anything less
> than 2.2.1.
I agree. Not optimizing bessel functions as builtins doesn't bother me
too much, but we might as well move past the buggy version.
Thanks,
--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery
[EMAIL PR
On Dec 9, 2007 11:05 PM, Kaveh R. GHAZI <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As requested by Richard G here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg00945.html
>
> I'm re-visiting during stage3 the minimum MPFR version required by GCC.
> At the time of the above post, mpfr-2.3.0 had not yet been rel
As requested by Richard G here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-05/msg00945.html
I'm re-visiting during stage3 the minimum MPFR version required by GCC.
At the time of the above post, mpfr-2.3.0 had not yet been released, but
it was this past August, and one can obtain it here:
http://www.m
