On 09/22/16 20:07, Moritz Klammler wrote: > Martin Sebor <mse...@gmail.com> writes: > >> [...] >> >>> In-tree only the versions that download_prerequisite picks are >>> tested and guaranteed to work. >> >> I was made aware today that my recent patch for pr49905 broke >> bootstrap with MPFR 2.4: >> >> https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2016-09/msg01507.html >> >> In light of this risk and given that the recommended MPFR version >> is still 2.4 I wonder if the download_prerequisites script shouldn't >> instead download the minimum supported version. That way those of >> us working with MPFR but not intimately familiar with its version >> specific details would have an easier way of avoiding such breakage. >> >> Alternatively, perhaps the script could be extended to make it >> possible to choose between the most recent and the recommended >> versions of the prerequisites that GCC is intended to work with, >> and people who make use of either in their code encouraged to >> test with both. > > As some of you might already be aware of, I'm currently trying to get a > new version of the `contrib/download_prerequisites` script approved that > will verify the checksums of the tarballs it downloads and also provides > additional options. If it is considered useful, I could add an option > to it that would do what you suggest. Am I understanding correctly that > we have a "minimum", "recommended" and "most recent" version for each > dependency and that the script currently uses the "most recent" one? If > the feature is wanted, all I'd need is somebody to tell me the version > numbers. >
No, the problem is, that these packages are not designed for in-tree builds but for stand-alone. Likewise they are not designed for cross-target builds. So for each version there are different work-arounds necessary from the toplevel configure scripts. And until I updated that top-level script, only the very old versions did *actually* work on all targets. Bernd.