GMP and MPFR
bruce.dubbs at gmail.com
Mon Oct 6 17:13:23 PDT 2008
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
>>> inline beyond that point, because that fixed the problem of the extra
>>> host system requirement. The extra packages are minimal, and required
>>> one way or the other. Shared seems better IMO as I use GMP anyway. It
>>> might not be a bad idea (less maintenance) to build the same way for
>>> both early builds and only build gmp and mpfr standalone for the final,
>>> though I haven't tried that yet.
>> I was going to ask
>> what you thought about making both passes in chapter 5 the same, but
>> you've touched on that as well. I don't suppose it makes a big
>> difference there. The only advantages I can see for building inline for
>> both passes are perhaps a slightly smaller set of temporary tools, a
>> marginal amount of time saved by the user (especially if building by
>> hand) and, again, slightly less chance of error.
> You forgot the editor's responsibility. If something changes in GMP at
> a later date, it would only have to be changed in one place instead of
> two. It's worth investing the time to make and test that change IMO.
> I'll try it in my Wednesday build.
Typically, the changes for a package are minimal -- a change in md5sum, etc. A
patch would require changes in two places, but for these packages, that is
More information about the lfs-dev