X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <49E5D1D4.1080205@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:23:48 +0100
From: Dave Korn <dave DOT korn DOT cygwin AT googlemail DOT com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: llvm-gcc + gmp 4.1?
References: <6910a60904150101k32a739a2p8db5a8c3acfb4850 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <6910a60904150101k32a739a2p8db5a8c3acfb4850@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Reini Urban wrote:
> I needed llvm.
> llvm builds fine, but llvm-gcc for fortran requires an updated gmp
> 4.1, which is interesting because we have gmp-4.2.4.
> This looks like a gcc upstream problem.
> And the llvm gcc frontend is only at 4.2, not 4.3, which would make life
> easier.
> Dave, do have any idea?

  Heh, I'm probably not the Dave you're looking for... but anyway:

> http://llvm.org/releases/2.5/llvm-gcc-4.2-2.5.source.tar.gz
> 
> checking for correct version of gmp.h... yes
> checking for correct version of mpfr.h... buggy version of MPFR detected
> checking for any version of mpfr.h... no
> configure: error: GMP 4.1 and MPFR 2.2.1 or newer versions required by fortran


  So... why do you think this is a gmp issue?  The message says that mpfr is
the problem.  It's possible that the real problem is an incorrect autoconf
check.  I'm just unpacking the llvm tarball to see if I can see whether it
really thinks that 2.4.1 is known buggy, or if it's maybe failing because it's
a newer version number than it expects (remember all the fails when texinfo
went from x.9 to x.10 because the regex assumed only one digit after the point?)

  Also, I haven't seen anything like this with upstream gcc or 4.3, so if it
is a gcc bug, it's already been fixed.  While I'm looking through m4 files,
why not do some googling and see if you can find if this cropped up before on
the gcc list?

    cheers,
      DaveK

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/