On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 8:18 AM, Marc Glisse <marc.glisse@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 8 Dec 2014, Cyd Haselton wrote: > >> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:01 AM, Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> >>> On 06/12/14 18:25, Marc Glisse 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... >>> >>> >>> If we need to update download_prerequisites we can easily do that. >>> >>> Andrew. >>> >> See my most recent question about current version and stability. >> Also, version 5.0.0 did not resolve the issue. > > > 5.0.0 is not that recent either... > (why anyone would first try version x.y.0 when many x.y.z are available is > beyond me) > Because there's a balance between later stable version and later version that works with an in-tree build of GCC/MPFR/MPC. My reasoning was that 5.0.0 is the next version up from 4.3.2...which is the version specified in download_prerequisites...but that was before finding out that version 5.0.0 introduced a bunch of new code. 6.0.0 is the most stable version, but >> Additionally, while I can configure gmp on Android, I cannot build it >> as some of the dependencies...specifically mpn...require M4 and >> setting M4=m4-not-needed does not work for them. > > > Passing --disable-assembly to configure might make m4 optional (in gmp-6). > Thanks...I will try that. >> While I'm working on >> porting a lot of standard linux utilities to Android, I'm limited to >> those that require a minimum of reconfiguration and/or ones that I'm >> somewhat familiar with. M4 is outside of both of those requirements. > > > I don't think m4 should be hard to port (but I have no experience with > android). Is the build complexity similar to, say, curl? > > -- > Marc Glisse
