GMP and MPFR

Randy McMurchy randy at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Oct 6 08:51:15 PDT 2008


Jeremy Huntwork wrote:

> I know I'm jumping in a little bit late here, but I'm having trouble 
> spotting where this discussion took place and I'd appreciate a cluebat.

I'm not sure it was ever discussed. DJ went out on his own and
built a version of the book that we've since sort of adopted as
the direction of SVN.

I believe most of the information he has was determined by
seeing what was going on over at DIY. I know that they discussed
it a bit over there. You may want to check the DIY archives.


> I'm just curious, what was the rationale behind building gmp and mpfr in 
>   different manners within the same book? To be more specific, why let 
> GCC build them internally for its own use on GCC pass1 and then build 
> them separately for the other two passes of GCC?

I'm not sure the rationale. But you bring up a good point.
Perhaps it has something to do with GCC pass 1 having GMP
and MPFR built in the GCC tree makes those libraries statically
linked to GCC.

Then, in Pass 2 of GCC perhaps it was/is undesirable to have
the GMP and MPFR libs statically linked. I'm just guessing, though.
We'll have to get DJ's input on that one.

However, in Chapter 6 I know I wouldn't like to see statically
linked GMP and MPFR in GCC as I build them later on and it seems
silly to have a package statically linked in GCC and all other
packages link dynamically.

This is all a guess. DJ and Greg could probably provide much
better details. But I'm glad you brought it up Jeremy as we
need to have an idea why things are the way they are.

-- 
Randy



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list