gcc 3.2

gcc 3.2

[shakeeb ahmed]

Hi
I am working on a project for which I need only GCC
3.2. I am using Cygwin and the automatic installation
does not support below gcc3.3 

I have downloaded the source file gcc-3.2.1.tar but
when I unpack it and run ./configure i get the
following error:

This configuration is not supported in the following
sub-directories:
target-libffi target-boehm-gc target-zlib
target-libjava
<Any other directories should still work fine>

"created makefile in home/S.S.LAB/gcc-3.2.1 using
"mh-frag"
/tmp/cNf 3232/cNf 3232.pos:line 7:gcc command not
found
*** gcc -o conftest -g conftest.c failed.
***You must set the environment variable CC to a
working compiler

How do I install without a previous compiler present.
I have searched for the binary file but to no avail.


Thank You

Shakeeb




      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

Re: gcc 3.2

[Eljay Love-Jensen]

Hi Shakeeb,

> I have downloaded the source file gcc-3.2.1.tar but
> when I unpack it and run ./configure i get the
> following error:

Note that "./configure" is not supported, as per the GCC instructions.

http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html

If you've unpacked GCC into:
~/gcc-3.2.1

Create a peer build directory, and run configure from that cwd:
mkdir ~/gcc-3.2.1-build
cd ~/gcc-3.2.1-build
../gcc-3.2.1/configure

Also note all the required components that need to be present to build GCC.

> How do I install without a previous compiler present.

Building GCC requires a compiler be present.  (It's a chicken-and-egg kind
of problem.)

Instead, download a pre-built compiler, and run the installer for that
pre-built GCC.

(A "configure" and "make" is not the same as an "install".)

> I have searched for the binary file but to no avail.

Since you are using Cygwin, isn't there an installable GCC compiler via
Cygwin SETUP.EXE?  If there are different pre-built GCC versions, they
should be selectable through the SETUP interface.

If your target is Cygwin as the platform, use Cygwin's GCC.

Cygwin: http://cygwin.com/

If your target is native Windows as the platform (without requiring the
Cygwin layer), you might want to use MinGW.

MinGW: http://www.mingw.org/

(I think these days Cygwin's GCC can be installed as a hybrid Cygwin /
MinGW, if so desired.  It can target either platform:  Cygwin and it's POSIX
magic-goo CYGWIN.DLL, or native Win32 via MinGW.)

I'm not sure (since I don't use them), but other options on Windows may be
MKS, Interix, or MS-SFU.  I'm not sure if they include a compiler or not;
and if not, whether a compiler is available for those Windows environments.

And finally, another 'nother option is Microsoft's Visual C++ 2008 Express
Edition:
http://www.microsoft.com/express/default.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/express/download/

Borland may have a free (or perhaps "free") C++ compiler as well.

HTH,
--Eljay

Re: Re: gcc 3.2

[Manuel López-Ibáñez]

Eljay Love-Jensen wrote:
> 
> I'm not sure (since I don't use them), but other options on Windows may be
> MKS, Interix, or MS-SFU.  I'm not sure if they include a compiler or not;
> and if not, whether a compiler is available for those Windows environments.
> 
> And finally, another 'nother option is Microsoft's Visual C++ 2008 Express
> Edition:
> http://www.microsoft.com/express/default.aspx
> http://www.microsoft.com/express/download/
> 
> Borland may have a free (or perhaps "free") C++ compiler as well.
> 

I was surprised to find an ad for non-free software in GNU's gcc-help 
mailing list. I honestly feel offended by your shameless promotion of 
non-free software in this list.

Of course, in private, you are welcome to promote whatever you want but 
in this list I find it a lack of respect towards free software 
developers, specially those of us that are not being paid at all for 
working on GCC.

Sincerely,

	Manuel López-Ibáñez.

PS: How would Adobe or its employees react if on their own mailing lists 
I were promoting alternatives to Acrobat: 
http://www.cogniview.com/convert-pdf-to-excel/post/pdf-editing-creation-50-open-sourcefree-alternatives-to-adobe-acrobat/
or recommending blocking all flash content in the web: 
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/
I am sure Adobe wouldn't censor me but I could understand if they felt 
slightly offended, specially if I were in Adobe's mailing list asking 
for gratis help to the non-paid Adobe programmers to use for free their 
open-source products. Oh, wait a moment....

Re: gcc 3.2

[Mihai Donțu]

On Sunday 24 February 2008, Manuel López-Ibáñez wrote:
> Eljay Love-Jensen wrote:
> > 
> > I'm not sure (since I don't use them), but other options on Windows may be
> > MKS, Interix, or MS-SFU.  I'm not sure if they include a compiler or not;
> > and if not, whether a compiler is available for those Windows environments.
> > 
> > And finally, another 'nother option is Microsoft's Visual C++ 2008 Express
> > Edition:
> > http://www.microsoft.com/express/default.aspx
> > http://www.microsoft.com/express/download/
> > 
> > Borland may have a free (or perhaps "free") C++ compiler as well.
> I was surprised to find an ad for non-free software in GNU's gcc-help 
> mailing list. I honestly feel offended by your shameless promotion of 
> non-free software in this list.

Oh, c'mon. I think Eljay was being rather practical than a "non-gcc-kind-of-free
software salesman". :)

-- 
Mihai Donțu

Re: gcc 3.2

[Eljay Love-Jensen]

Hi Manuel,

> I was surprised to find an ad for non-free software in GNU's gcc-help
> mailing list. I honestly feel offended by your shameless promotion of
> non-free software in this list.

I presume by "non-free" you mean "not open source", since I believe the two
compilers I mentioned are free (as in "cost no money").

In order to build GCC, you need to have a compiler.  One way to build GCC is
to use one of those other compilers to build GCC, which was the context of
the message to use one of those other compilers as the bootstrap compiler
GCC.

I am sorry you are offended by references to non-open source products in
this forum as a means to bootstrap compile GCC.  No slight was intended
towards open-source software developers.

Sincerely,
--Eljay

g++ man pages

[umapathy]

hi,
	I am badly searching for some man pages like docs for g++.  My system
is RH7.3 and my gcc version is 2.96 which came with that distro.  I
tried to google also, but couldnt get useful info.  May be I couldnt
came up with correct search string.

	thanks in advance for the help and time

regards
Umapathy

Re: g++ man pages

[umapathy]

No I was not clear with my question.
I am searching for some basic explanations of the STL which has been
implemented for g++.  I know its part of libstdc++, but dont know the
appropriate newsgroup.  May be someone in this group know the answer, so
please guide me on this.

Umapathy

On Sun, 2002-12-22 at 21:35, umapathy wrote:
> hi,
> 	I am badly searching for some man pages like docs for g++.  My system
> is RH7.3 and my gcc version is 2.96 which came with that distro.  I
> tried to google also, but couldnt get useful info.  May be I couldnt
> came up with correct search string.
> 
> 	thanks in advance for the help and time
> 
> regards
> Umapathy
> 
-- 
umapathy <nsupathy@myrealbox.com>

gcc 3.2

[Geoffrey]

Recent upgrade to Mandrake 9.0 brought with it gcc 3.2.  Now I'm finding 
all kinds of software that compiled fine with 2.9? will not compile with 
3.2.  memtest86 and speechtools 1.2.2 for festival are two examples.

Anyone else having such problems?  Is it the code or the compiler?

-- 
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric@3times25.net

The latest, most widespread virus?  Microsoft end user agreement.
Think about it...

Re: gcc 3.2

[Alexander Helm]

Hi Geoffrey,

mostly it's the code (missing "std::cout" or "using namespace std;").

Furthermore 3.2 is more standard compliant thus resulting in error 
messages not thrown whilest using 2.9x.

AFAIK there are some small FAQs around and at least some information on 
gcc.gnu.org

	CU
	Alexander

Geoffrey wrote:
> Recent upgrade to Mandrake 9.0 brought with it gcc 3.2.  Now I'm finding 
> all kinds of software that compiled fine with 2.9? will not compile with 
> 3.2.  memtest86 and speechtools 1.2.2 for festival are two examples.
> 
> Anyone else having such problems?  Is it the code or the compiler?
>