From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21311 invoked by alias); 6 May 2002 22:58:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-help-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 21302 invoked from network); 6 May 2002 22:58:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ritig9.rit.reuters.com) (199.171.195.8) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 May 2002 22:58:55 -0000 Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 15:58:00 -0000 From: Joe.Miller@reuters.com Subject: GCC Version? To: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 Message-ID: <20020506155800.hhqSXKEfVW4M8Pob_BG87yq9cMymzIQCb-Ka3ww-4eA@z> 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.