Geek Answers Handbook

Is there a real reason that gcc is so conservative with its dependencies? (MPFR, GMP, MPC)

I am wondering if anyone knows why gccit tends to be so conservative about the versions of libraries that will be used for compilation and assembly gcc.

The main reasons I ask:

  • I think that there is a big shift between the "implicitly suggested" versions listed here (they also appear in some scenarios within the gccsources) and the last milestones.
  • I think that at some point, a conservative can only increase the chances of transferring listening and suboptimal versions of this library.

the latest releases are currently available compared to "implicitly offered":

      latest     considered by gcc
MPFR  3.1.2      2.4.2
GMP   6.0.0a     4.3.2
MPC   1.0.2      0.8.1

This is only for vital, there are others, such as cloog and isl, but here you can see a big difference, these releases are just old.

Does anyone know of some good reasons for this? Violation of changes in these 3 libraries? Stability? Portability?

+4
source share
1 answer

The answer is in GCC PR / 60933 Comment 2 from Jonathan Wackley:

, , GCC . , , , .

+2

More articles:


All Articles