marc.glisse at inria.fr
Tue May 3 23:08:51 CEST 2011
On Tue, 3 May 2011, Torbjorn Granlund wrote:
> Marc Glisse <marc.glisse at inria.fr> writes:
> > The latter still is not robust, since we don't make any promises about
> > the existence of configfsf.guess. (They could provide their own
> > config.guess, stored outside of GMP, though.)
> Would it make sense to introduce some option to gmp to do this robustly?
> Is there a compelling reason for that?
- Distributions that think fat is too fat, or don't like the fact that
large parts of the code gets shipped untested. For some application,
gmp is more useful for its precision than its extreme performance.
- Platforms where fat isn't supported.
I'm not arguing in favor of it, just trying to find reasons.
> Ah, they use a much newer autoconf than we have in ~gmp/usr/bin on
I assume so as I hit the same error here after an autoconf upgrade
(although autoconf wasn't by far the only package updated).
> One should be humbly grateful when things mysteriously just work. :-)
I am indeed.
More information about the gmp-devel