From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 648 invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2002 21:56:40 -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 579 invoked from network); 21 Feb 2002 21:56:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO bnfep02.boone.winstar.net) (63.140.240.54) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Feb 2002 21:56:37 -0000 Received: from [192.168.49.19] ([24.148.43.197]) by bnfep02.boone.winstar.net with ESMTP id <20020221215636.HQRV16433.bnfep02@[24.148.43.197]>; Thu, 21 Feb 2002 16:56:36 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Sender: bobgus%mcs.net@mail.winstarmail.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <15477.9309.112114.331616@wh2-19.st.uni-magdeburg.de> References: Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 14:19:00 -0000 To: Frank Schafer From: Bob Gustafson Subject: Re: Which version of GCC to use: an example Cc: gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00219.txt.bz2 Frank: I wasn't subscribed until now, so I missed your reply to my original post On 21 Feb 2002 10:30:58 +0100 Frank Schafer wrote: > On Thu, 2002-02-21 at 08:46, Bob Gustafson wrote: >> My goal was to compile and install prcs-1.3.1 (a new source code >> control system) >> >> I started out with gcc version 2.96 which is the stock version supplied >> with RedHat 7.2 (for i686-pc-linux-gnu) > >There never was a 2.96 release of GCC. This branch was only for >development. If RedHead ships broken compilers with it's release, >RedHead users have to live with this -- haven't they ;-) ? I had heard of some controversy about RH's choice of compilers, but now have switched to 2.95.3 > >> I thought it might be a problem with the compiler, so I downloaded and >> installed gcc-3.0.3 and reconfigured and compiled prcs >> (files expanded fresh from tar.gz). > >Me too took gcc-3.0.3 last week, to set it up as a secondary compiler >but I don't have much luck with it. To say the thruth - I havent much >time just now for such an experiment. > >> Finally, I installed gcc version 2.95.3 (2.95.3 20010315 (release)) and >> this worked fine. > >I've already built whole systems with this version. If you have >glibc-2.2.x you'll need the gcc-2.95.3-2.patch. Looking in the build directory for gcc, I see a ./install/glibc-2.2.patch - I assume that it was applied (??) during the gcc build process (??). How do I tell for sure? (gcc-2.95.3 was built from source files on this machine) It looks like I do have the glibc-2.2.4 (see below) [user1@hoho0 user1]$ /lib/libc.so.6 GNU C Library stable release version 2.2.4, by Roland McGrath et al. Copyright (C) 1992-1999, 2000, 2001 Free Software Foundation, Inc. This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Compiled by GNU CC version 2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.1 2.96-97). Compiled on a Linux 2.4.7-6smp system on 2001-09-04. Available extensions: GNU libio by Per Bothner crypt add-on version 2.1 by Michael Glad and others The C stubs add-on version 2.1.2. linuxthreads-0.9 by Xavier Leroy BIND-8.2.3-T5B NIS(YP)/NIS+ NSS modules 0.19 by Thorsten Kukuk Glibc-2.0 compatibility add-on by Cristian Gafton libthread_db work sponsored by Alpha Processor Inc Report bugs using the `glibcbug' script to . [user1@hoho0 user1]$ > >> I don't know if there are bugs in the compiler(s) or bugs in prcs-1.3.1, >> but this might be a regression test to pass for the newer compilers. > >The task for you to find out. > >> PCRS can be obtained at http://sourceforge.net/projects/prcs >> > >BTW: What's so wrong with CVS? Nothing too much, but I like to try something new from time to time. I have CVS, but don't use it enough for my own stuff. Perhaps PCRS will fit in more naturally. Or, maybe I can just script it to do what needs to be done automatically. I only need it for backup and to keep my toes from being shot off. > >Regards >Frank