Question about installing gcc on HP-UX 11.00

Question about installing gcc on HP-UX 11.00

[Brian Fenton]

Hello, 
	I'm new to this territory so please forgive me if this mail is
in error.

	I want to install gcc on HP-UX 11.00, but the following comment
from the GCC FAQ Installation "hpux installation question"
( http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/fom.cgi?_highlightWords=hp&file=59 ) has
seriously put me off:
"Please note that GCC 2.95.* does not support HP/UX 11. That's why
installing it is a pain. Even if you manage to bootstrap it, it will
fail to compile some code because some built-in declarations won't match
those in HP/UX's header files."
Can you confirm the comment and advise what alternatives I might have?
Will an earlier version of gcc work for me? I don't want to proceed with
installing 2.95 if the above comment is true.
thanks very much,
Brian Fenton

Re: Question about installing gcc on HP-UX 11.00

[Warrick T. Lacey, Jr.]

Yes, Brian, it has been my experience that any gcc.2.95.X has problems under
11.00...
I was also advised by the GNU/CYGNUS people that 2.95.X is not/has not been
'checkout' 
for 11.00. I solved my problem by using gcc.2.7.2.3 (it is old but, it works
well
for us, lot of tweaks on the system files).

Good Luck,
Warrick


Brian Fenton wrote:
> 
> Hello,
>         I'm new to this territory so please forgive me if this mail is
> in error.
> 
>         I want to install gcc on HP-UX 11.00, but the following comment
> from the GCC FAQ Installation "hpux installation question"
> ( http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/fom.cgi?_highlightWords=hp&file=59 ) has
> seriously put me off:
> "Please note that GCC 2.95.* does not support HP/UX 11. That's why
> installing it is a pain. Even if you manage to bootstrap it, it will
> fail to compile some code because some built-in declarations won't match
> those in HP/UX's header files."
> Can you confirm the comment and advise what alternatives I might have?
> Will an earlier version of gcc work for me? I don't want to proceed with
> installing 2.95 if the above comment is true.
> thanks very much,
> Brian Fenton