From: Frank Schaefer <frank.schafer@setuza.cz>
To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: GCC Version?
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 22:25:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1020749122.331.4.camel@ADMIN> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020506225929.615BB73D0F@violet.setuza.cz>
On Tue, 2002-05-07 at 00:52, Joe.Miller@reuters.com wrote:
> GCC Help,
>
> My group is currently in the planning stages to port our Solaris codebase to the RedHat Linux 7.2 operating system. It has been suggested to us to use GCC 2.96, but all information that we have read from the GCC website indicates that 2.96 is not a "formal" version. We have been therefore considering using GCC 3.0.x, however we must link with third party static libraries built with GCC 2.95.3. Are libraries built with GCC 2.95.3 binary compatible with GCC 3.0.x (i.e. can we link with 2.95.3 static libraries from 3.0.x)? And since our primary goals for porting to Linux is performance oriented, are there any significant binary run-time performance advantages that GCC 3.0.x might provide over GCC 2.95.3?
>
> Thank you for your time.
>
> Joe Miller
> Programmer Analyst
> Reuters - Oak Brook, IL
> joe.miller@reuters.com
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Visit our Internet site at http://www.reuters.com
>
> Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual
> sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be
> the views of Reuters Ltd.
>
Hey Joe,
As we all know about RedHead, they often take unstable and early
development versions of packages to build teir distributions. So they
did with GCC too.
As far as I know, GCC-3.x.x and GCC-2.x.x are not binary compatible.
Due to the performance issues ... We had some discussion about this on
the kernel mailing list not so far ago. Nobody there found a great
difference in performance between 2.x.x and 3.x.x.
I'd change to 2.95.3 in your place. I'm using this as my standard
compiler on all production hosts. There is a patch available if you want
to use glibc-2.2.x.
If you stuck with C maybe GCC-3.x.x will work too ( dunno, try it out )
but C++ won't work I'm afraid.
Regards
Frank
PS: If you don't find the patch, let me know. Maybe I've saved it
somewhere.
next parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-07 5:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20020506225929.615BB73D0F@violet.setuza.cz>
2002-05-06 22:25 ` Frank Schaefer [this message]
2002-05-06 15:58 Joe.Miller
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-05-06 15:58 Joe.Miller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1020749122.331.4.camel@ADMIN \
--to=frank.schafer@setuza.cz \
--cc=gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).