Re: [PATCH v2] Enable GDB build with in-tree GMP and MPFR

Bernd Edlinger
2020-12-29T08:36:13Z

On 12/27/20 11:01 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>
>
> On 2020-12-25 7:05 a.m., Bernd Edlinger wrote:
>> Hi everybody,
>>
>> I have now two possible ways to go forward with the configure options
>> for gmp and mpfr.
>>
>> See the attached patches:
>>
>> Variant 1: implements traditional configure options
>> --with-gmp-include=DIR, --with-gmp-lib=DIR, --with-gmp=DIR,
>> --with-mpfr-include=DIR, --with-mpfr-lib=DIR, --with-mpfr=DIR
>> but does additionally understand --with-libmpfr-prefix=DIR
>> and --with-mpfr=auto/yes/no.
>>
>> Variant 2: (I already posted that one) keeps all configure options
>> as they are now, and just uses the presence of a ../gmp and ../mpfr
>> directory to override the gmp and mpfr configure flags.
>>
>> I would be interested in what you think, and which variant you would
>> prefer.
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bernd.
>>
>
> I really don't have a strong opinion about this, but my only strong-ish
> opinion is that I want to minimize the complexity of what we add.
> I'm already on the fence about the download script and detecting gmp
> / mpfr in-tree, because I think this is complexity we don't need.
> It's not difficult for the user to download and build these two
> libraries. It's totally fine for a project to have required
> dependencies that the user needs to build first...
>
> We already provide --with-libmpfr-prefix and --with-libgmp-prefix.
> Any complexity we add (like adding --with-gmp-include and
> --with-gmp-lib on top of that) means more combinations to test for
> whoever needs to modify that code next, more chances of breaking
> something. IMO it is not a net benefit for the project to add
> these additional new switches.
>
> Joel convinced me that it's not so important to stay in sync with
> gcc for this. So I'd choose the existing solution of using
> AC_LIB_HAVE_LINKFLAGS, since that takes care of all the low level
> details for us.
>
> Simon
>

Okay, I also like the second variant better.

Can I assume that you agree to that variant?

If yes, then I should send the patch regarding the
toplevel configury change also to the binutils mailing list,
right?

Thanks
Bernd.