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

[Bernd Edlinger <bernd.edlinger@hotmail.de>]

On 12/14/20 11:17 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2020-12-14 4:35 p.m., Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>>> "Simon" == Simon Marchi <simark@simark.ca> writes:
>>
>> Simon> So with this patch, we now have:
>>
>> Simon>   --with-gmp-include=DIR  GMP include directory
>> Simon>   --with-gmp-lib=DIR      GMP lib directory
>> Simon>   --with-gmp=DIR          GMP install directory
>> Simon>   --with-libgmp-prefix[=DIR]  search for libgmp in DIR/include and DIR/lib
>> Simon>   --without-libgmp-prefix     don't search for libgmp in includedir and libdir
>>
>> Simon> I think that's getting a bit confusing.  That's too many ways to set gmp
>> Simon> paths, with -with-libgmp-prefix and --with-gmp doing the same thing.
>>
>> FWIW we have the same situation with MPFR.
> 
> :(
>> Simon> It might mean that we have to stop using AC_LIB_HAVE_LINKFLAGS
>> Simon> though, or customize it.
>>
>> Yes.  Perhaps alternatively we could promote its use to the top level.
>> It's maybe a pain to do that.
> 
> Perhaps, but --with-{gmp,mpfr} would need to be kept as backwards
> compatibility.  I think it would be hard to convince the gcc people of
> the benefits of such a change.
> 
>> Simon> An alternative to downloading the pre-requisites would be to check them
>> Simon> in the repo.  We do it for readline already: there is a copy in the
>> Simon> repo, which is used by default, but you can specify
>> Simon> --with-system-readline if you want to use the system's readline.  We
>> Simon> could do the same with gmp and mpfr.  The downside is that we deviate a
>> Simon> bit from how gcc does, the the upside is that it's simpler, IMO.
>>
>> For me the main difference here is that, historically, we've had to
>> patch readline.  In cases where GDB has never needed to patch a
>> dependency (libiconv comes to mind), we've haven't bothered.
> 
> Ok, when you put it like that then it doesn't make as much sense to
> check the code in the repo.
> 
> Thinking about it a bit more, I don't see why gmp and mpfr get this
> treatment, what is it that makes them different from other dependencies?
> If you want to build GDB with XML support, you download and build expat,
> or install it using your package manager.  Why can't you do the same
> with mpfr/gmp?  The only reason for us I can see is "because gcc does
> it" and we share the build system with gcc.  But otherwise, I'd just
> tell people to build/install mpfr and gmp themselves.
> 

I think the difference, is other libraries may be missing,
but there is still a reasonable default in that case, just
when the build starts to fail completely without them, that
makes it inconvenient.


Bernd.

> Simon
>