From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7608 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2008 23:37:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 7583 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2008 23:37:21 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from E23SMTP05.au.ibm.com (HELO e23smtp05.au.ibm.com) (202.81.18.174) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:36:34 +0000 Received: from sd0109e.au.ibm.com (d23rh905.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.225]) by e23smtp05.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m96NZTQe026372; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:35:29 +1100 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by sd0109e.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id m96NaUl2284360; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:36:30 +1100 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m96NaTx7008470; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:36:30 +1100 Received: from ozlabs.au.ibm.com (ozlabs.au.ibm.com [9.190.163.12]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m96NaTUq008467; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:36:29 +1100 Received: from [9.185.116.229] (WECM01-9-185-116-229.au.ibm.com [9.185.116.229]) (using SSLv3 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by ozlabs.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3656B73728; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:36:28 +1100 (EST) Subject: Re: [PATCH]: bump minimum MPFR version, (includes some fortranbits) From: Ben Elliston To: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" Cc: Adrian Bunk , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, fortran@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: References: <20081006131832.GD25182@cs181140183.pp.htv.fi> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 06 Oct 2008 23:40:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1223336186.27932.1.camel@helios> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-10/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2 On Mon, 2008-10-06 at 16:10 -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote: > The last time this came up, the consensus was that we should not hard fail > the configure script even if the user would then be missing some mpfr bugfix > in the latest/greatest release. That's why we have the minimum/recommended > split. Doesn't this mean that we can then have two different versions of GCC (as identified by gcc --version), linked with different mpfr libraries, that may exhibit different behaviour? Ben