Re: GCC Version?

Re: GCC Version?

[Frank Schaefer]

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.

GCC Version?

[Joe.Miller]

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.

GCC Version?

[Joe.Miller]

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.