On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:49:49PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 26.02.2011 04:42, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Clearly one should be mindful of the effect on GCC -- that's why I
asked
On 26.02.2011 18:08, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 05:49:49PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 26.02.2011 04:42, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Clearly one should be
Dear Matthias,
On Sat, Feb 26, 2011 at 06:10:54PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 26.02.2011 18:08, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Instead of asking cryptic questions, could you please spell out your
concerns in detail so that we could address them.
what is cryptic about the question?
Thanks for
On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Matthias asks:
did you check, that all gcc versions do build with the new version
on all architectures, and that the gcc testsuite doesn't show
regressions with the new version? will gcc continue to work, while
re-building mpfr and mpclib with the
On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 03:57:28PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 25.02.2011 08:46, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Clearly one should be mindful of the effect on GCC -- that's why I
asked the question on debian-gcc. Do you have any specific concerns?
Have any concerns been raised on the GCC
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 04:48 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Have any of the reverse-dependencies been test-built against the new
version? Does the move to 5.0.1 imply any source changes being required
for reverse-dependencies,
On 24.02.2011 21:15, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
Matthias also responded requesting:
I see that both the runtime library and the -dev packages have
different package names. But to be able to still use gmp3 for
existing GCC versions, please change the source name too, such
On Thu, 2011-02-24 at 22:15 +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
On 24.02.2011 21:15, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
[...]
Matthias also responded requesting:
I see that both the runtime library and the -dev packages have
different package names. But to be able to still use gmp3 for
On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 08:15:44PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 04:48 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
Have any of the reverse-dependencies been test-built against the new
version? Does the move to
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 01:39:39PM +, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 12:39 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Looking at the package names of the unstable and experimental versions,
it looks like the main change is libgmp3c2 to libgmp3? (There is also
lib{32,64}gmp3 -
On 06.02.2011 19:39, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Hi,
Now that squeeze is out, I'd like to move from GMP 4 to GMP 5. The
latter was released upstream about a year ago and the gmp lists
aren't buzzing with outrageous bugs, so it appears stable enough.
I know GMP is used in gcc itself, so I'd
On Sun, 2011-02-06 at 12:39 -0600, Steve M. Robbins wrote:
Now that squeeze is out, I'd like to move from GMP 4 to GMP 5. The
latter was released upstream about a year ago and the gmp lists
aren't buzzing with outrageous bugs, so it appears stable enough.
Looking at the package names of the
Hi,
Now that squeeze is out, I'd like to move from GMP 4 to GMP 5. The
latter was released upstream about a year ago and the gmp lists
aren't buzzing with outrageous bugs, so it appears stable enough.
I know GMP is used in gcc itself, so I'd appreciate some guidance
from the gcc team as well,
13 matches
Mail list logo
