GMP and MPFR

Robert Connolly robert at linuxfromscratch.org
Mon Oct 6 18:05:44 PDT 2008


On Monday October 6 2008 08:50:08 pm Randy McMurchy wrote:
> Steve Crosby wrote:
> > So Chapter 5 can be inline with GCC (which builds static by default)
> > or seperate but static, and Chapter 6 can be shared or static as you
> > prefer.
>
> After thinking about this all day, I tend to think this is the
> way to go. Build GMP and MPFR inline with GCC (static) in
> Chapter 5, then break them out and build them separately in
> Chapter 6.
>
> Chapter 5 is the tools that build our final production version
> of packages. There's really no need to build GMP and MPFR
> separately in Chapter 5. It is actually easier to simply put
> instructions in the Chapter 5 GCC (both passes) to untar the
> packages and let GCC do its thing.
>
> Then, in Chapter 6, break out GMP and MPFR into separate
> packages. I'd like to see this as the direction we take.
>
> Of course, other suggestions are welcome.
>
> --
> Randy

I ran into problems when I combined GCC and Binutils in the same tree because 
of libiberty. GMP and MPFR don't have their own version of libiberty, so this 
specific problem shouldn't occur with GMP or MPFR. But I feel it is more 
flexable to build GMP and MPFR separately, statically, until the top level 
makefile, in GCC, becomes more standardized.

robert
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/attachments/20081006/ea95b073/attachment.sig>


More information about the lfs-dev mailing list