On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, 7 Dec 2014, Cyd Haselton wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Cyd Haselton <chaselton@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 12:25 PM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@xxxxxxxx> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Sat, 6 Dec 2014, Cyd Haselton wrote: >>>> >>>>> Is this something to report to mpfr or gmp maintainers or here? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> You should first try a recent version of GMP. The one from >>>> download_prerequisites is older than Android... >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Marc Glisse >>> >>> >>> GMP 5.0.0 yields the same results. Is there a particular version I >>> should try before reporting to GMP or MPFR maintainers? >> >> >> Just following up on the question above...I want to make sure I'm >> following the correct protocol..i.e. there isn't anything I should try >> (configure/configfsf.sub, env variable(s), top-level configure change) >> before I report to the GMP list. > > > Before reporting, you should get the latest version of GMP (6.0.0a) or a > daily snapshot (in developers' corner), and build it independently, outside > of a gcc bootstrap, passing as few options as possible to configure. If > 'make' or 'make check' fails, then see > https://gmplib.org/manual/Reporting-Bugs.html > > -- > Marc Glisse One question before I pull the latest version... I found this post regarding gmp 5.0.0 while searching for a fix: https://gmplib.org/list-archives/gmp-announce/2010-January/000024.html The part from that post that caught my eye is here: *snip* CAUTION: The amount of new code means that there might be more bugs in this release than in most GMP releases in the past. We therefore release the stable GMP 4.3.2 at about the same time as this release. If you are concerned about possible bugs in the present release, consider using GMP 4.3.2 instead. *snip* Given the above info, shouldn't I be looking for the most stable recent release to compile in-tree with GCC instead of the most recent? Thanks in advance...
