RE: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

RE: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Beardsley, Jason]

IMHO, implying that the GCC group should take any kind of
responsibility for RPMs uploaded to RedHat's contrib directory
is utterly ridiculous.  I can't imagine you seriously mean that.
If the packages don't work, then complain to the people who
built them.

If you can't wait for RedHat to issue an official upgrade
to GCC 2.95, then may I suggest building it from source?

Jason Beardsley


-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Markov [ mailto:imarkov@cs.ucla.edu ]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 5:26 PM
To: John Wehle
Cc: gcc@egcs.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586



  John,

    thanks... what you are saying makes sense, but my
  main suggestion was that egcs maintainers consider
  ensuring the availability of good RPMs. This may 
  include contacting someone who can pack RPMs, or
  learning the RPM tricks or... talking to RedHat,
  whatever. Please do not consider this as "making
  binaries for every trashy system", but rather
  "ensuring the utility to major customers".
  I don't suppose many windows applications depend
  on gcc and libs, neither on Solaris or HP-UX.
  gcc is the default compiler on Linux. Things 
  are very difft here.

						Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

FYI

[Igor Markov]

  I mailed to Michael Johnson of RedHat sometime ago re: the RPMs
  for gcc and also contacted (many hrs ago) a guy who builds new RPMs
  daily and announces them on a redhat mailing list.

  My point was that it would have been a prudent measure for the 
  egcs group and cygnus support to establish such contacts earlier...
  apparently you are of a difft opinion; oh well...

  It's probably even less effort than typing replies to my emails ;)

								Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: FYI

[Christopher C Chimelis]

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Igor Markov wrote:
> 
>   I mailed to Michael Johnson of RedHat sometime ago re: the RPMs
>   for gcc and also contacted (many hrs ago) a guy who builds new RPMs
>   daily and announces them on a redhat mailing list.
> 
>   My point was that it would have been a prudent measure for the 
>   egcs group and cygnus support to establish such contacts earlier...
>   apparently you are of a difft opinion; oh well...
> 
>   It's probably even less effort than typing replies to my emails ;)

While I'm not a member of the egcs/gcc group, I can understand both sides
of this issue.  Igor, what they're trying to convey is that, because of
the sheer number of configurations and platforms supported by GCC, it
would be nearly impossible to keep a list of responsible parties for each
(partially because of time and partially because of turnover at each
respective company/organisation).  I can definitely understand your point
about ensuring that quality binary packages are generated from the gcc
group's work, but at the same time, they have enough work to do without
having to call and/or write everyone on a list regarding their releases.

On another note, to claim that Linux (and more specifically ix86 RedHat 
Linux) is the dominant OS obviously is not only irrelevant, but is also
incorrect.  My workplace, for example, uses both Alpha and i386 machines
running Debian Linux.  To me, Debian is the most obvious and dominant OS
of choice, but install-base does not necessarily dictate what the gcc
group should and shouldn't look after.  There are certainly MANY different
people using a variety of platforms that probably use and rely on GCC far
more than either of us do.  Does the fact that they use Solaris make them
any further down the list just because Solaris isn't as widely installed
as RedHat Linux?

Lastly, consider this: being a Debian developer who's thoroughly familiar
with RedHat's distribution, I've found that all RH releases rely solely on
the compiler distributed with them and do NOT *require* that a newer
version be installed.  Basically, if you want to ensure the quality of the
package, wait for RedHat's next release (which will most likely include
gcc 2.95).  On the other hand, using third-party builds of packages is
always risky.  I've watched RedHat's contrib directory over the years and
have been frightened at times at how poor the quality of some of the
packages there really is.

A solution:  write to one of the RedHat lists and ask if anyone has a
working gcc 2.95 RPM set finished and working.  If you get numerous
responces from people (all using the same set on configurations similar to
yours), then try the ones that they use and you will most likely get
better results than you have thusfar.

Good luck...
C

PS. I recently built the Debian .deb binary packages for Debian Alpha, so
let me assure you that there are MANY MANY variables that have to be
considered by the packager.  ALOT can go wrong (and in this case probably
has).

Re: FYI

[Igor Markov]

  hmmm... I have been working with SunPro CC as a C++ compiler
  for years because g++ could not compile C++ code that I wrote.
  MSVC++ is another problem our lab supports.

  Now, with the new release of gcc, we planned to maintain the code
  with g++ in addition to those two. I spent half a day overall and
  discovered a strange but apparent ignorance of final users that 
  the gcc team has. We will have to wait until the smoke clears and
  personal ambitions settle down.

  Finally, Chris, I appreciate your efforts to interpret emails to
  the two parties, but I can only stand by what I wrote ----
  I am pretty sure that PCs dominate general purpose computers,
  and that, independently, RedHat is dominating Linux installations --
  I saw this published ;-)  (I think you slightly misquoted me on this)

							Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: FYI

[Christopher C Chimelis]

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Igor Markov wrote:

>   hmmm... I have been working with SunPro CC as a C++ compiler
>   for years because g++ could not compile C++ code that I wrote.
>   MSVC++ is another problem our lab supports.

Hehehe..yes, MSVC++ can be a difficult animal itself :-)

>   Now, with the new release of gcc, we planned to maintain the code
>   with g++ in addition to those two. I spent half a day overall and
>   discovered a strange but apparent ignorance of final users that 
>   the gcc team has. We will have to wait until the smoke clears and
>   personal ambitions settle down.

I can understand this....

>   Finally, Chris, I appreciate your efforts to interpret emails to
>   the two parties, but I can only stand by what I wrote ----
>   I am pretty sure that PCs dominate general purpose computers,
>   and that, independently, RedHat is dominating Linux installations --
>   I saw this published ;-)  (I think you slightly misquoted me on this)

I probably did :-) At any rate, the one thing that I think RedHat
consistantly overlooks is binary package dependencies (which Debian has,
believe me, this is not to toot our horn, just an example).  I think alot
of the misbuilt RPMs that I've run into relate to this.  In this case, I'm
pretty sure that ignorance of that issue, coupled with lack of general
knowledge on the packager's part (hence the ownership issues) and also
lack of general libtool knowledge (argh) probably defeated that set of
RPMs.  I would strongly recommend building it from source for two reasons:
ensuring that nothing was "added" to the RPMs in question and also so that
you can tailor the installation to your particular systems.  I have a more
than rudimentary understanding of gcc and the RPM format, but wouldn't
even attempt making a set of RPMs unless I was POSITIVE that I could make
them as portable as possible (obviously something overlooked by the
packager of the RPMs in contrib).

At any rate, I'll bow out of this discussion again :-)  I understand both
sides, but I would tend to agree with the "build it from the source"
advice on the list (I know I usually do, having an EV56 Alpha).

C

FYI

[Igor Markov]

  I mailed to Michael Johnson of RedHat sometime ago re: the RPMs
  for gcc and also contacted (many hrs ago) a guy who builds new RPMs
  daily and announces them on a redhat mailing list.

  My point was that it would have been a prudent measure for the 
  egcs group and cygnus support to establish such contacts earlier...
  apparently you are of a difft opinion; oh well...

  It's probably even less effort than typing replies to my emails ;)

								Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: FYI

[Christopher C Chimelis]

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Igor Markov wrote:

>   hmmm... I have been working with SunPro CC as a C++ compiler
>   for years because g++ could not compile C++ code that I wrote.
>   MSVC++ is another problem our lab supports.

Hehehe..yes, MSVC++ can be a difficult animal itself :-)

>   Now, with the new release of gcc, we planned to maintain the code
>   with g++ in addition to those two. I spent half a day overall and
>   discovered a strange but apparent ignorance of final users that 
>   the gcc team has. We will have to wait until the smoke clears and
>   personal ambitions settle down.

I can understand this....

>   Finally, Chris, I appreciate your efforts to interpret emails to
>   the two parties, but I can only stand by what I wrote ----
>   I am pretty sure that PCs dominate general purpose computers,
>   and that, independently, RedHat is dominating Linux installations --
>   I saw this published ;-)  (I think you slightly misquoted me on this)

I probably did :-) At any rate, the one thing that I think RedHat
consistantly overlooks is binary package dependencies (which Debian has,
believe me, this is not to toot our horn, just an example).  I think alot
of the misbuilt RPMs that I've run into relate to this.  In this case, I'm
pretty sure that ignorance of that issue, coupled with lack of general
knowledge on the packager's part (hence the ownership issues) and also
lack of general libtool knowledge (argh) probably defeated that set of
RPMs.  I would strongly recommend building it from source for two reasons:
ensuring that nothing was "added" to the RPMs in question and also so that
you can tailor the installation to your particular systems.  I have a more
than rudimentary understanding of gcc and the RPM format, but wouldn't
even attempt making a set of RPMs unless I was POSITIVE that I could make
them as portable as possible (obviously something overlooked by the
packager of the RPMs in contrib).

At any rate, I'll bow out of this discussion again :-)  I understand both
sides, but I would tend to agree with the "build it from the source"
advice on the list (I know I usually do, having an EV56 Alpha).

C

RE: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Beardsley, Jason]

IMHO, implying that the GCC group should take any kind of
responsibility for RPMs uploaded to RedHat's contrib directory
is utterly ridiculous.  I can't imagine you seriously mean that.
If the packages don't work, then complain to the people who
built them.

If you can't wait for RedHat to issue an official upgrade
to GCC 2.95, then may I suggest building it from source?

Jason Beardsley


-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Markov [ mailto:imarkov@cs.ucla.edu ]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 1999 5:26 PM
To: John Wehle
Cc: gcc@egcs.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586



  John,

    thanks... what you are saying makes sense, but my
  main suggestion was that egcs maintainers consider
  ensuring the availability of good RPMs. This may 
  include contacting someone who can pack RPMs, or
  learning the RPM tricks or... talking to RedHat,
  whatever. Please do not consider this as "making
  binaries for every trashy system", but rather
  "ensuring the utility to major customers".
  I don't suppose many windows applications depend
  on gcc and libs, neither on Solaris or HP-UX.
  gcc is the default compiler on Linux. Things 
  are very difft here.

						Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: FYI

[Igor Markov]

  hmmm... I have been working with SunPro CC as a C++ compiler
  for years because g++ could not compile C++ code that I wrote.
  MSVC++ is another problem our lab supports.

  Now, with the new release of gcc, we planned to maintain the code
  with g++ in addition to those two. I spent half a day overall and
  discovered a strange but apparent ignorance of final users that 
  the gcc team has. We will have to wait until the smoke clears and
  personal ambitions settle down.

  Finally, Chris, I appreciate your efforts to interpret emails to
  the two parties, but I can only stand by what I wrote ----
  I am pretty sure that PCs dominate general purpose computers,
  and that, independently, RedHat is dominating Linux installations --
  I saw this published ;-)  (I think you slightly misquoted me on this)

							Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: FYI

[Christopher C Chimelis]

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Igor Markov wrote:
> 
>   I mailed to Michael Johnson of RedHat sometime ago re: the RPMs
>   for gcc and also contacted (many hrs ago) a guy who builds new RPMs
>   daily and announces them on a redhat mailing list.
> 
>   My point was that it would have been a prudent measure for the 
>   egcs group and cygnus support to establish such contacts earlier...
>   apparently you are of a difft opinion; oh well...
> 
>   It's probably even less effort than typing replies to my emails ;)

While I'm not a member of the egcs/gcc group, I can understand both sides
of this issue.  Igor, what they're trying to convey is that, because of
the sheer number of configurations and platforms supported by GCC, it
would be nearly impossible to keep a list of responsible parties for each
(partially because of time and partially because of turnover at each
respective company/organisation).  I can definitely understand your point
about ensuring that quality binary packages are generated from the gcc
group's work, but at the same time, they have enough work to do without
having to call and/or write everyone on a list regarding their releases.

On another note, to claim that Linux (and more specifically ix86 RedHat 
Linux) is the dominant OS obviously is not only irrelevant, but is also
incorrect.  My workplace, for example, uses both Alpha and i386 machines
running Debian Linux.  To me, Debian is the most obvious and dominant OS
of choice, but install-base does not necessarily dictate what the gcc
group should and shouldn't look after.  There are certainly MANY different
people using a variety of platforms that probably use and rely on GCC far
more than either of us do.  Does the fact that they use Solaris make them
any further down the list just because Solaris isn't as widely installed
as RedHat Linux?

Lastly, consider this: being a Debian developer who's thoroughly familiar
with RedHat's distribution, I've found that all RH releases rely solely on
the compiler distributed with them and do NOT *require* that a newer
version be installed.  Basically, if you want to ensure the quality of the
package, wait for RedHat's next release (which will most likely include
gcc 2.95).  On the other hand, using third-party builds of packages is
always risky.  I've watched RedHat's contrib directory over the years and
have been frightened at times at how poor the quality of some of the
packages there really is.

A solution:  write to one of the RedHat lists and ask if anyone has a
working gcc 2.95 RPM set finished and working.  If you get numerous
responces from people (all using the same set on configurations similar to
yours), then try the ones that they use and you will most likely get
better results than you have thusfar.

Good luck...
C

PS. I recently built the Debian .deb binary packages for Debian Alpha, so
let me assure you that there are MANY MANY variables that have to be
considered by the packager.  ALOT can go wrong (and in this case probably
has).

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[David O'Brien]

On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 03:20:03PM -0700, Igor Markov wrote:
> > This is the 1999 version "All the world is a VAX running BSD" syndrome....
> 
>    Linux is one of major GNU "customers" and egcs was trusted to become
>    the official version of gcc by GNU. I would expect this assumes some
>    responsibility.

And {Free,Open}BSD are major GNU "customers".  Both of these OS's use GNU
compiler toolchains exclusively.  This includes gcc/g++, libstdc++,
gperf, bison, binutils (as & ld), gdb, gprof, etc..

So I demand you wait in line until the GCC maintainers supply *my* binaries!
I demand that they do it too!

-- David 
P.S. Being serious, GCC-2.95 binary packages should be on
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-{stable,current}
w/in days.  I commit the changes to the Ports Collection this morning.

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[IGOR LEONIDOVICH MARKOV]

  Follow-up... I am able to compile and run a C hello world program,
  so this is likely to be an issue of stdc++

[imarkov@localhost ~]$ rpm -q libstdc++
libstdc++-2.9.0-12
libstdc++-2.95-2        
[imarkov@localhost ~]$

   quite likely, I should just force the upgrade of 2.9,
   but if this fails, many things may not work anymore,
   so I better wait for advice.

   Also, please cc: imarkov@cs.ucla.edu
   because I am not subscribed to the mailing list (reading it
   over the Web)
							Igor

   P.S. For some reason, posts from cs.ucla.edu are rejected
        by egcs.cygnus.com -- pretty obnoxious, I'd say.

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 03:03:14PM -0000, craig@jcb-sc.com wrote:
> I agree with all of the sentiment about the GCC team not having
> producing RPM's as one of its functions.
> 
> I'd like to add that my impression is that not just GCC, but GNU
> generally, could benefit the community by looking over the various
> package-management systems (RPMs, and doesn't Debian have one?) and
> figuring out, at least, how best to architect, design, and implement
> the relevant bits of GNU products so GNU maintainers, as well as
> packagers, have an easier life producing robust, portable products.

And as one of the people who makes the Debian packages (yes, we have
one), I can say that GCC has gone a long way down that road already. 
While the packaging is somewhat complex, it's not at all as bad as I
would have expected from a project of this size.

Dan

/--------------------------------\  /--------------------------------\
|       Daniel Jacobowitz        |__|        SCS Class of 2002       |
|   Debian GNU/Linux Developer    __    Carnegie Mellon University   |
|         dan@debian.org         |  |       dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu      |
\--------------------------------/  \--------------------------------/

RE: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Putney, Jeff]

So some yahoo really thinks gcc should be distributed as source and RedHat
RPMs?  Why redhat?  Why not distribute binaries as solaris packages, or
HP/UX packages, or AIX packages, or DG/UX packages and let's have them do
packages for Slackware and Debian, and all the other linux distrobutions
while we're asking.  Then, while we are on a roll, let's have them do a
package for each of those OS's for each distrobution for each architecture
they run on.  
Linux will run on the palm pilot, don't forget to make a distrobution for
that.
Oh, wait, we need different packages depending on library versions, and type
of assembler and linker.
So, why single out RedHat on an x86?  Is there really a that much greater
density of stupidity on that particular platform.  If so, what does a group
of compiler hackers have to gain from such a group by catering to them?  A
bunch of bug reports because the compiler wouldn't fix their syntax errors
for them and moronic code examples to point to and laugh at is about the
only payback they would get.

--jeff (not the Law, but a jeff of a different flavor)

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Joe Buck]

>  
>        I had a very troublesome morning today, partly due to negligence
>   of various people, apparently including egcs maintainers etc.

Nonsense.  Your troubles are because of your own action and no one else's.

>    First, I
>   wanted to upgrade egcs to gcc-2.95 on my RedHat-6.0 system. You probably
>   know that things come in "RPM"s for RedHat (a way to install stuff), but
>   nothing was announced on teh RedHat mailing lists or egcs.cygnus.com

That's because the RPMs you installed were not produced or approved by
either the GCC (formerly EGCS) team nor by Red Hat.  Some random person
made them.  That's why they are in the "contrib" directory.  Anyone who
installs such things does so entirely at his or her own risk.

If the RPMs are defective, you can ask Red Hat to remove them if you like.

>   I suggest that egcs maintainers take care of RPMs for gcc-2.95
>   and (a) announce all necessary RPMs and the install sequence on
>   their site, (b) dub the announcement through RedHat RPM lists

Sorry, no.  The GCC team produces a portable compiler for many operating
systems.  It will not do RPMs customized for Red Hat.  That's Red Hat's
job.  Go bug them.

The GCC team does not work for you, and is under no obligation to honor
your demands.  Throwing around offensive language like "negligence"
only makes it less likely that anyone will help you.

The GCC team provides a source distribution only.  You can download it
and compile it yourself if you wish.  If you lack the expertise to do
this, then wait for Red Hat to do it, or hire someone to do it for you.

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[craig]

I agree with all of the sentiment about the GCC team not having
producing RPM's as one of its functions.

I'd like to add that my impression is that not just GCC, but GNU
generally, could benefit the community by looking over the various
package-management systems (RPMs, and doesn't Debian have one?) and
figuring out, at least, how best to architect, design, and implement
the relevant bits of GNU products so GNU maintainers, as well as
packagers, have an easier life producing robust, portable products.

        tq vm, (burley)

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Igor Markov]

  John,

    thanks... what you are saying makes sense, but my
  main suggestion was that egcs maintainers consider
  ensuring the availability of good RPMs. This may 
  include contacting someone who can pack RPMs, or
  learning the RPM tricks or... talking to RedHat,
  whatever. Please do not consider this as "making
  binaries for every trashy system", but rather
  "ensuring the utility to major customers".
  I don't suppose many windows applications depend
  on gcc and libs, neither on Solaris or HP-UX.
  gcc is the default compiler on Linux. Things 
  are very difft here.

						Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < Pine.SOL.4.05.9908041353270.24340-100000@margay.noc.ucla.edu >you 
write:
  >    P.S. For some reason, posts from cs.ucla.edu are rejected
  >         by egcs.cygnus.com -- pretty obnoxious, I'd say.
If it has an open relay, then it is not obnoxious at all and can be easily
solved by having the folks at cs.ucla fix their spam-friendly mail system.

jeff

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Philipp Thomas]

On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 15:25:36 -0700, Igor Markov <imarkov@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:

>"ensuring the utility to major customers"

Amazing, you still don't seem to get it.

Pardon, Customers ? Did we charge you for downloading ? So stop talking of
customers. Yes, Linux is an important platform for the gcc team and much
effort has gone into making gcc work on that platform, provided that it is
being built by someone who knows how to do it.

This is free software, created by volunteers. So, as I already wrote in
another mail, get a clue or move to an OS where you pay for what you get and
thus have a right to demand anything.



Philipp

-- 
Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers
and deluge the hobby market with good software.
                                            -- Bill Gates, 1976

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Igor Markov]

  somehow, I don't see the explanations making sense...
  
  Joe is essentially saying "use at your own risk"... 
     that's not very helpful

  Steve says those RPMs were probably built on a platform
  different from mine --- but I can compile C just fine, it's
  C++ is giving me problems (all RPMs were compiled on the
  same machine by the same person, the same day).
  
  It seems to me, the issue is that of system libraries
  (libstdc++) and resp. dependencies -- something very
  easy to screw up and potentially fatal for many applications. 

  It is certainly up to gcc maintainers to know what's new
  in libstc++-2.95 and what problems this may cause. That's
  the help I am trying to get here.

	  						Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 37A8D384.C2E697FE@cs.ucla.edu >you write:
  >    Saying that the matrix of distributions is too big makes little sense.
  >    I'd expect at most a few dozens configurations. Keeping a mailing list
  >    for people who can ensure that binaries are available isn't hard.
It is.  As the person in charge of release logistics, this is a huge
project and not one we are going to take on.

Sorry, but that's life.  Stop whining.  If you don't like the RPMs complain
to the people who made them, but do not cc us on it, this is not our problem.

jeff

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Robert Lipe]

Igor Markov wrote:

>    I understand it's not a hacker thing to download binaries,
>    but shouldn't that work? (and why do you want me to necessarily
>    go through the source install)

The product produced by the GCC (nee EGCS) group is a source release.
The GCC group does not provide binary kits for any architecture.  Other
groups package these things up for specific environments with varying
degrees of doc, testing, QA, and even quality.

Problems with any binary distribution you're working should be directed
to the party responsible for that distribution.

Being rude with the GCC development team isn't likely to advance the
state of your effort.


This is the 1999 version "All the world is a VAX running BSD" syndrome....

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez]

What makes the attitude of Igor Markov very unpolite is to place
a striking message on the subject line 
"Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586"

It appears that Igor believes that he is very clever using a subject
line that looks as a serious bug report, so that it is more likely
to be read. If I where an EGCS developer I would feel offended.
You can forgive one newbie who makes a silly question on this mailing
list, after all all of we have been newbies. Even if the question  is
very silly you can answer it if you have free time. But complaing
that he does not have a RPM and using such a subject line is a very
different thing. It is like those spams messages that have a subject
line that looks like a message from a friend. Or like those messages
that have a From line like if your admistrator had written them, and then
you find out that they offer how to win 3000$ in a day.. 
This is not acceptable at all.

Certainly GCC developers are more polite than me, taking 
into account that none of them mentioned the bad attitude of Igor.

These facts do not encourage GCC development. Even if some developers
of GCC are full-time Cygnus employees, many of them are volunteers.
Some of them, like Craig, have made a very remarkable work.
The combination of Igor messages with Torvalds insults makes the will
of these volunteers more difficult to maintain. So end users like me
should at least acknowledge the quality of their work. And if we must
solve a problem related to end use, we should try first with any
Linux expert that we find near us. If we must make a question about
instalation, let us find out as much as posible by ourselves, so 
that developer time can be more productive. 

Ramon

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Steven W Orr]

Sometimes it does work. The problem is that not all rpms are going to be
compatible with all platforms. There might be differences between SUSE,
RH, Debian, Caldera, etc such that the rpm might not work on a platform
that it wasn't built on. In fact, if the rpm doesn't build from src then
that's a good indication that there is a dependency that you are not yet
aware of. Personally, I have my rpm customized so that it produces i686
instructions. If you got the rpm from redhat, then that's an indication
that it was built for *some* sort of red hat system. If you're running
RH6.0 then *usually* you will be able to run rpm's that are specifically
built for 6.0 or are designated as 6.0 update rpms.

BTW, The src install is required in order to do the build. The build
produces the resulting rpms in /usr/src/redhat/RPMS. In this case they
would all end up in the i386 subdirectory.

-- 
----------Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana.----------------
--------Stranger things have happened but none stranger than this.-------------
Steven W. Orr      steveo@world.std.com     <site of former bang addr:-)>
---------------"Listen to me! We are all individuals."-------------------------

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Igor Markov wrote:

=>
=>> Instead you should have gone to /contrib/libc6/SRPMS and fetched
=>> gcc-2.95-2.src.rpm and then
=>> rpm -i gcc-2.95-2.src.rpm
=>> cd /usr/src/redhat
=>> rpm -ba gcc.spec
=>> rpm -Uvh all the resulting i386.rpm files
=>> Then they would have been made for your machine.
=>
=>   wait.. not so fast!
=>   I have a regular Pentium-150 (not an AMD or Cyrix clone),
=>   and downloaded RPMs from the i386 directory.
=>
=>   I understand it's not a hacker thing to download binaries,
=>   but shouldn't that work? (and why do you want me to necessarily
=>   go through the source install)
=>
=>							Igor
=>

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Alex Buell]

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Igor Markov wrote:

>   It is certainly up to gcc maintainers to know what's new

You are using glibc are you? You may have been bitten by the binary
incompatibility that exist between libraries built with different versions
of gcc.

Solution is to rebuild your glibc. I think. 

Cheers, 
Alex 
-- 

Legalise cannabis today!

http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Steven W Orr]

Instead you should have gone to /contrib/libc6/SRPMS and fetched
gcc-2.95-2.src.rpm and then
rpm -i gcc-2.95-2.src.rpm
cd /usr/src/redhat
rpm -ba gcc.spec
rpm -Uvh all the resulting i386.rpm files
Then they would have been made for your machine.

-- 
----------Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana.----------------
--------Stranger things have happened but none stranger than this.-------------
Steven W. Orr      steveo@world.std.com     <site of former bang addr:-)>
---------------"Listen to me! We are all individuals."-------------------------

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, IGOR LEONIDOVICH MARKOV wrote:

=>
=>  Hi,
=> 
=>       I had a very troublesome morning today, partly due to negligence
=>  of various people, apparently including egcs maintainers etc. First, I
=>  wanted to upgrade egcs to gcc-2.95 on my RedHat-6.0 system. You probably
=>  know that things come in "RPM"s for RedHat (a way to install stuff), but
=>  nothing was announced on teh RedHat mailing lists or egcs.cygnus.com
=>  So, I went to ftp://ftp.redhat.com/contrib and found   gcc-2.95*rpm
=>  gcc-c++-2.95*rpm and the like. Downloaded those. Trying to install..
=>  they conflict w egcs-1.1.2 (that came w Linux). Ok, removed egcs and
=>  egcs-c++ .. updated binutils to the latest...  trying to compile a
=>  C++ hello world program, it can't find iostream.h .. ok, looked around,
=>  found libstdc++ RPMs (including devel). Installed them, but the previous
=>  version was needed by a bunch of programs including KDE and netscape, 
=>  so I have two ATM.
=>    Now, I can compile  cout << " hello" <<endl; 
=>    but it does not run giving me "Illegal instruction (core dumped)"
=>   
=>  RPMs are signed by Hung Quan <binaire@videotron.ca>
=>  (By the way, RPM install complained because it could not find
=>  user binaire... so was installing things as root)
=>
=>  I suggest that egcs maintainers take care of RPMs for gcc-2.95
=>  and (a) announce all necessary RPMs and the install sequence on
=>  their site, (b) dub the announcement through RedHat RPM lists
=>  
=>   thanks,
=>							Igor
=>		
=>

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Joe Buck]

> I'm inclined to agree on this one. As an example, fetchmail is delivered
> as a .tar.gz file as well as a src.rpm.

fetchmail is a completely independent program.  Installing fetchmail
won't change the behavior of other programs, and possibly make them
stop working.  Installing a new gcc package with a binary-incompatible
C++ library is another matter, one best left to the folks who put out
the distribution.

> Is there anything else I can say to help stimulate the production of gcc
> in both forms?

Even if we wanted to do it, there's no one that we can order to do the job
(the release manager and principal developers have their hands full and,
to the extent that they have free time, would prefer to improve the
compiler to dealing with packaging issues).  It would need to be done by a
skilled, careful volunteer who would not announce the result until he/she
had conducted thorough testing.  libstdc++/libc collisions are a frequent
problem on Linux, and this has to be managed carefully when doing binary
distributions.

Even then, the RPM should not install the new compiler in /usr/bin,
wiping out the system compiler.  For one thing, people would no longer
be able to build Linux kernels without manual intervention (as one
must specify -fno-strict-aliasing to build the kernel correctly).

Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[IGOR LEONIDOVICH MARKOV]

  Hi,
 
       I had a very troublesome morning today, partly due to negligence
  of various people, apparently including egcs maintainers etc. First, I
  wanted to upgrade egcs to gcc-2.95 on my RedHat-6.0 system. You probably
  know that things come in "RPM"s for RedHat (a way to install stuff), but
  nothing was announced on teh RedHat mailing lists or egcs.cygnus.com
  So, I went to ftp://ftp.redhat.com/contrib and found   gcc-2.95*rpm
  gcc-c++-2.95*rpm and the like. Downloaded those. Trying to install..
  they conflict w egcs-1.1.2 (that came w Linux). Ok, removed egcs and
  egcs-c++ .. updated binutils to the latest...  trying to compile a
  C++ hello world program, it can't find iostream.h .. ok, looked around,
  found libstdc++ RPMs (including devel). Installed them, but the previous
  version was needed by a bunch of programs including KDE and netscape, 
  so I have two ATM.
    Now, I can compile  cout << " hello" <<endl; 
    but it does not run giving me "Illegal instruction (core dumped)"
   
  RPMs are signed by Hung Quan <binaire@videotron.ca>
  (By the way, RPM install complained because it could not find
  user binaire... so was installing things as root)

  I suggest that egcs maintainers take care of RPMs for gcc-2.95
  and (a) announce all necessary RPMs and the install sequence on
  their site, (b) dub the announcement through RedHat RPM lists
  
   thanks,
							Igor
		

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Igor Markov]

 
> This is the 1999 version "All the world is a VAX running BSD" syndrome....

   while this is totally unrelated to my questions, I think the
   comparison is somewhat warped.

   Linux is one of major GNU "customers" and egcs was trusted to become
   the official version of gcc by GNU. I would expect this assumes some
   responsibility.

   RPMs are used on most distros, RedHat is one of major distros 
   (statistically most popular?). Also, the PC platform is clearly dominant.
   I doubt that BSD on VAX ever enjoyed such a popularity.

   I am very surprised that you are trying to marginalize a common
   platform and explicitely refuse to ensure consistent effort.
   
  								Igor

   P.S. yes, I do understand that everyone is a volunteer and can
        dissapear forever in 5 mins, but I am not asking you to thank me
        for sending you  bug reports.
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Igor Markov]

>>        I had a very troublesome morning today, partly due to negligence
>>   of various people, apparently including egcs maintainers etc.
>
>Nonsense.  Your troubles are because of your own action and no one else's.
  
   allright, I shouldn't have downloaded the RPMs... cool
   but don't you think that ensuring correct RPMs on egcs site
   is a prudent measure? (not necessarily making them... there are
   tons of people who RPMize new things as they come out)

> If the RPMs are defective, you can ask Red Hat to remove them if you like.

   with pleasure...

								Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Igor Markov wrote:
> 
>   John,
> 
>     thanks... what you are saying makes sense, but my
>   main suggestion was that egcs maintainers consider
>   ensuring the availability of good RPMs. This may
>   include contacting someone who can pack RPMs, or
>   learning the RPM tricks or... talking to RedHat,
>   whatever. Please do not consider this as "making
>   binaries for every trashy system", but rather
>   "ensuring the utility to major customers".

	Igor... "major customers" write checks.

	Ben Scherrey

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Mike Stump]

> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:57:56 -0700
> From: Igor Markov <imarkov@cs.ucla.edu>

>   2. You can contact people who can do this
>  
>    Keeping a mailing list for people who can ensure that binaries
>    are available isn't hard.

Yes, it isn't, and we do this.  It is called gcc-announce, and
anyone and everyone that cares to be on it is already on it.

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Joe Buck]

>    Linux is one of major GNU "customers" and egcs was trusted to become
>    the official version of gcc by GNU. I would expect this assumes some
>    responsibility.

Yes.  GCC 2.95 was thoroughly tested on Red Hat 6.0.

>    I am very surprised that you are trying to marginalize a common
>    platform and explicitely refuse to ensure consistent effort.

Nonsense.  Package management is important, but is not the job of the
GCC team.  It is the job of those who put together distributions.
Complain to them.  The GCC team will not provide binary distributions
for any platform, period (though some member of the team might, on his
own, do so).

Let's say that we did put out an RPM and called it "official".  If we did,
we'd be stepping on Red Hat's turf.  It's up to them to produce a *set* of
RPMs that are consistent with each other, decide on version numbers, etc.

>    P.S. yes, I do understand that everyone is a volunteer and can
>         dissapear forever in 5 mins, but I am not asking you to thank me
>         for sending you  bug reports.

You are sending bug reports to the wrong place.  Send them to the person
who made the RPMs.

And you also need to learn to communicate more politely.  With all of the
stresses of getting this release out and dealing with last-minute FSF
concerns, people are stressed out.  We really don't need to hear insults
from a whiner who messed up his system by his own actions and seeks to
blame others.

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Igor Markov]

  ok... last email on this
 
  1. Joe, the author of buggy RPMs is on the cc: of all the messages,
     including yours.     

>  Package management is important, but is not the job of the GCC team. 

  2. You can contact people who can do this
 
   Saying that the matrix of distributions is too big makes little sense.
   I'd expect at most a few dozens configurations. Keeping a mailing list
   for people who can ensure that binaries are available isn't hard.

   Finally, if you guys are stressed out and don't have time, 
   why don't you just put a disclaimer on egcs site ---- 
   "will be done later", so that I don't really plan on using gcc
   (aftering getting burnt by expecting a release in the first half
    of July).
 
								Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Igor Markov]

> Instead you should have gone to /contrib/libc6/SRPMS and fetched
> gcc-2.95-2.src.rpm and then
> rpm -i gcc-2.95-2.src.rpm
> cd /usr/src/redhat
> rpm -ba gcc.spec
> rpm -Uvh all the resulting i386.rpm files
> Then they would have been made for your machine.

   wait.. not so fast!
   I have a regular Pentium-150 (not an AMD or Cyrix clone),
   and downloaded RPMs from the i386 directory.

   I understand it's not a hacker thing to download binaries,
   but shouldn't that work? (and why do you want me to necessarily
   go through the source install)

							Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[John Wehle]

>   thanks... what you are saying makes sense, but my
> main suggestion was that egcs maintainers consider
> ensuring the availability of good RPMs. This may 
> include contacting someone who can pack RPMs, or
> learning the RPM tricks or... talking to RedHat,
> whatever. Please do not consider this as "making
> binaries for every trashy system", but rather
> "ensuring the utility to major customers".

A very understandable suggestion clearly stated,
unfortunately the wording on early emails seemed
a little harsh and not as clear.

  1) The RPMs tend to quickly get very platform specific
     which means that it's a very big matrix to support.
     The gcc maintainers are concerned that good RPMs
     are available, however they expect the bulk of the
     responsibility for this to be handled by each OS vendor
     since the OS vendor knows best how to configure
     the software for their system.

  2) Since the gcc maintainers release a source code product
     which anyone can use and / or distribute (as long as the
     copyright is respected), it's difficult for them to act
     as police and prevent RPMs which are not appropriate for
     some people to be placed on ftp sites.  Keep in mind that
     they are somewhat understaffed and overworked as it is ...
     and quite frankly it's not their job.

I expect that RedHat will at some point release
a RPM which will work for you.  Unfortunately it
sounds like what you grabbed wasn't released by
RedHat for your platform.  If it's urgent that
you have the new release *now* then you can:

  1) Try random RPMs and contact whoever built
     the RPM for help.

  2) Try building gcc 2.95 from the original source
     code.  If you run into problems then follow the
     instructions for reporting a bug and someone
     probably will try to help out.

  3) Find / hire someone to help you in this endeavor.

Sorry I can't be of more help (my only RedHat development
system at the moment is 5.2 and it's awaiting a new motherboard).

-- John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Feith Systems  |   Voice: 1-215-646-8000  |  Email: john@feith.com  |
|    John Wehle    |     Fax: 1-215-540-5495  |                         |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Steven W Orr]

I'm inclined to agree on this one. As an example, fetchmail is delivered
as a .tar.gz file as well as a src.rpm. Lots of software is now coming
that way. When I install *anything* I always look for an rpm to install
from. *If* the tar.gz file is properly set up, i.e., if configure really
works 100% correctly, then the spec file for the rpm, by definition,
becomes trivial. I'm not going to go over the pros and cons of rpm vs. tgz
but I think it's a safe bet that anyone who doesn't use rpm is running on
a system that's just not rpm based. If you have it you use it without
question.

Is there anything else I can say to help stimulate the production of gcc
in both forms?

-- 
----------Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana.----------------
--------Stranger things have happened but none stranger than this.-------------
Steven W. Orr      steveo@world.std.com     <site of former bang addr:-)>
---------------"Listen to me! We are all individuals."-------------------------

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Igor Markov wrote:

=>
=>  John,
=>
=>    thanks... what you are saying makes sense, but my
=>  main suggestion was that egcs maintainers consider
=>  ensuring the availability of good RPMs. This may 
=>  include contacting someone who can pack RPMs, or
=>  learning the RPM tricks or... talking to RedHat,
=>  whatever. Please do not consider this as "making
=>  binaries for every trashy system", but rather
=>  "ensuring the utility to major customers".
=>  I don't suppose many windows applications depend
=>  on gcc and libs, neither on Solaris or HP-UX.
=>  gcc is the default compiler on Linux. Things 
=>  are very difft here.
=>
=>						Igor
=>

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Philipp Thomas]

On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:57:56 -0700, Igor Markov <imarkov@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:

>   Finally, if you guys are stressed out and don't have time, 
>   why don't you just put a disclaimer on egcs site ---- 
>   "will be done later", so that I don't really plan on using gcc
>   (aftering getting burnt by expecting a release in the first half
>    of July).

Ok, you asked for it, so better get your asbestos underwear.

Are you trying to troll or are you really such an ignorant fool. There will be
no "will be done later" because IT IS NOT OUR JOB, period. And about getting
burnt: could it be that you somehow missed that this is volunteer work ? So
did you help us in reaching that *tentative* goal by contributing ? No ? Then
shut up and try growing up.

As has been told to you, we only do source releases. Isn't that clear enough ?
It's the job of the *vendor* of the distribution you use to supply you with
the binary rpm, not the gcc team.

So go complaining to RedHat, but you'd better be prepared for unpleasant
answers from them because you seem to have missed the disclaimer for stuff in
the contrib directory, namely that everything there is *not* official RedHat
stuff and you use it at your own risk. You did so, it broke, you get to keep
the pieces.

If you don't know how to compile all the necessary packages, wait for the
official announcement from the vendor of your choice. But STOP whining and
blaming others because YOU didn't have a clue and stop insulting those of us
that invested their free time to make gcc 2.95 happen.

Try to get the clue you very obviously don't have, try to listen to what
people tell you, and no, reading "Linux-Hacker in 24 hours" is not sufficient.



Philipp

-- 
Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers
and deluge the hobby market with good software.
                                            -- Bill Gates, 1976

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[John Wehle]

> somehow, I don't see the explanations making sense...
> 
> Joe is essentially saying "use at your own risk"... 
>    that's not very helpful

It's hard to troubleshoot a product produced by a third party.
The best people to supply support for that product is those
people who made it.  The product produced by the gcc maintainers
is a source code release and I'm sure that they would be
interest in problems building their product on RedHat.

> It is certainly up to gcc maintainers to know what's new
> in libstc++-2.95 and what problems this may cause. That's
> the help I am trying to get here.

I'm sure that they do know what's new in libstc++-2.95, unfortunately
this isn't what you are asking about.  You are asking about problems
with a specific binary produced by a third party.  It's true that the
third party may have build the binary from gcc source code, however
there's a lot of variables outside of gcc maintainers control which
effect whether the binary in question will be useful for you.  Presumably
these variables are in the control of whoever built the binary.

-- John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Feith Systems  |   Voice: 1-215-646-8000  |  Email: john@feith.com  |
|    John Wehle    |     Fax: 1-215-540-5495  |                         |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Joe Buck]

>   somehow, I don't see the explanations making sense...
>   
>   Joe is essentially saying "use at your own risk"... 
>      that's not very helpful

OK, I'll help you.  I'll tell you exactly how to get gcc-2.95 running
on your system.  These instructions assume that you have the development
tools installed (e.g. you have gcc, make and friends).

1. Download the tar file.  You will have a big file named gcc-2.95.tar.gz.

2. Unpack it.  Type 
	tar zxf gcc-2.95.tar.gz

3. Type
	cd gcc-2.95

4. Type
	./configure

5. Type
	make bootstrap-lean

6. (As a user that has permission to write /usr/local): type
	make install

You now have gcc-2.95 in /usr/local/bin/gcc .

Note that this method will give you a statically linked libstdc++.a,
so your binaries will be large.  But since you don't appear to be
particularly competent, this will be the safest method to keep you
from hosing your system (breaking existing C++ executables by adding
an incompatible libstdc++).

If you do this and find that you have problems, read the FAQ.

RE: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Putney, Jeff]

So some yahoo really thinks gcc should be distributed as source and RedHat
RPMs?  Why redhat?  Why not distribute binaries as solaris packages, or
HP/UX packages, or AIX packages, or DG/UX packages and let's have them do
packages for Slackware and Debian, and all the other linux distrobutions
while we're asking.  Then, while we are on a roll, let's have them do a
package for each of those OS's for each distrobution for each architecture
they run on.  
Linux will run on the palm pilot, don't forget to make a distrobution for
that.
Oh, wait, we need different packages depending on library versions, and type
of assembler and linker.
So, why single out RedHat on an x86?  Is there really a that much greater
density of stupidity on that particular platform.  If so, what does a group
of compiler hackers have to gain from such a group by catering to them?  A
bunch of bug reports because the compiler wouldn't fix their syntax errors
for them and moronic code examples to point to and laugh at is about the
only payback they would get.

--jeff (not the Law, but a jeff of a different flavor)

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Ram'on Garc'ia Fern'andez]

What makes the attitude of Igor Markov very unpolite is to place
a striking message on the subject line 
"Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586"

It appears that Igor believes that he is very clever using a subject
line that looks as a serious bug report, so that it is more likely
to be read. If I where an EGCS developer I would feel offended.
You can forgive one newbie who makes a silly question on this mailing
list, after all all of we have been newbies. Even if the question  is
very silly you can answer it if you have free time. But complaing
that he does not have a RPM and using such a subject line is a very
different thing. It is like those spams messages that have a subject
line that looks like a message from a friend. Or like those messages
that have a From line like if your admistrator had written them, and then
you find out that they offer how to win 3000$ in a day.. 
This is not acceptable at all.

Certainly GCC developers are more polite than me, taking 
into account that none of them mentioned the bad attitude of Igor.

These facts do not encourage GCC development. Even if some developers
of GCC are full-time Cygnus employees, many of them are volunteers.
Some of them, like Craig, have made a very remarkable work.
The combination of Igor messages with Torvalds insults makes the will
of these volunteers more difficult to maintain. So end users like me
should at least acknowledge the quality of their work. And if we must
solve a problem related to end use, we should try first with any
Linux expert that we find near us. If we must make a question about
instalation, let us find out as much as posible by ourselves, so 
that developer time can be more productive. 

Ramon

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[David O'Brien]

On Wed, Aug 04, 1999 at 03:20:03PM -0700, Igor Markov wrote:
> > This is the 1999 version "All the world is a VAX running BSD" syndrome....
> 
>    Linux is one of major GNU "customers" and egcs was trusted to become
>    the official version of gcc by GNU. I would expect this assumes some
>    responsibility.

And {Free,Open}BSD are major GNU "customers".  Both of these OS's use GNU
compiler toolchains exclusively.  This includes gcc/g++, libstdc++,
gperf, bison, binutils (as & ld), gdb, gprof, etc..

So I demand you wait in line until the GCC maintainers supply *my* binaries!
I demand that they do it too!

-- David 
P.S. Being serious, GCC-2.95 binary packages should be on
ftp://ftp.freebsd.org/pub/FreeBSD/ports/i386/packages-{stable,current}
w/in days.  I commit the changes to the Ports Collection this morning.

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Thu, Aug 05, 1999 at 03:03:14PM -0000, craig@jcb-sc.com wrote:
> I agree with all of the sentiment about the GCC team not having
> producing RPM's as one of its functions.
> 
> I'd like to add that my impression is that not just GCC, but GNU
> generally, could benefit the community by looking over the various
> package-management systems (RPMs, and doesn't Debian have one?) and
> figuring out, at least, how best to architect, design, and implement
> the relevant bits of GNU products so GNU maintainers, as well as
> packagers, have an easier life producing robust, portable products.

And as one of the people who makes the Debian packages (yes, we have
one), I can say that GCC has gone a long way down that road already. 
While the packaging is somewhat complex, it's not at all as bad as I
would have expected from a project of this size.

Dan

/--------------------------------\  /--------------------------------\
|       Daniel Jacobowitz        |__|        SCS Class of 2002       |
|   Debian GNU/Linux Developer    __    Carnegie Mellon University   |
|         dan@debian.org         |  |       dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu      |
\--------------------------------/  \--------------------------------/

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[craig]

I agree with all of the sentiment about the GCC team not having
producing RPM's as one of its functions.

I'd like to add that my impression is that not just GCC, but GNU
generally, could benefit the community by looking over the various
package-management systems (RPMs, and doesn't Debian have one?) and
figuring out, at least, how best to architect, design, and implement
the relevant bits of GNU products so GNU maintainers, as well as
packagers, have an easier life producing robust, portable products.

        tq vm, (burley)

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Philipp Thomas]

On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 15:25:36 -0700, Igor Markov <imarkov@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:

>"ensuring the utility to major customers"

Amazing, you still don't seem to get it.

Pardon, Customers ? Did we charge you for downloading ? So stop talking of
customers. Yes, Linux is an important platform for the gcc team and much
effort has gone into making gcc work on that platform, provided that it is
being built by someone who knows how to do it.

This is free software, created by volunteers. So, as I already wrote in
another mail, get a clue or move to an OS where you pay for what you get and
thus have a right to demand anything.



Philipp

-- 
Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers
and deluge the hobby market with good software.
                                            -- Bill Gates, 1976

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Philipp Thomas]

On Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:57:56 -0700, Igor Markov <imarkov@cs.ucla.edu> wrote:

>   Finally, if you guys are stressed out and don't have time, 
>   why don't you just put a disclaimer on egcs site ---- 
>   "will be done later", so that I don't really plan on using gcc
>   (aftering getting burnt by expecting a release in the first half
>    of July).

Ok, you asked for it, so better get your asbestos underwear.

Are you trying to troll or are you really such an ignorant fool. There will be
no "will be done later" because IT IS NOT OUR JOB, period. And about getting
burnt: could it be that you somehow missed that this is volunteer work ? So
did you help us in reaching that *tentative* goal by contributing ? No ? Then
shut up and try growing up.

As has been told to you, we only do source releases. Isn't that clear enough ?
It's the job of the *vendor* of the distribution you use to supply you with
the binary rpm, not the gcc team.

So go complaining to RedHat, but you'd better be prepared for unpleasant
answers from them because you seem to have missed the disclaimer for stuff in
the contrib directory, namely that everything there is *not* official RedHat
stuff and you use it at your own risk. You did so, it broke, you get to keep
the pieces.

If you don't know how to compile all the necessary packages, wait for the
official announcement from the vendor of your choice. But STOP whining and
blaming others because YOU didn't have a clue and stop insulting those of us
that invested their free time to make gcc 2.95 happen.

Try to get the clue you very obviously don't have, try to listen to what
people tell you, and no, reading "Linux-Hacker in 24 hours" is not sufficient.



Philipp

-- 
Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers
and deluge the hobby market with good software.
                                            -- Bill Gates, 1976

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Joe Buck]

> I'm inclined to agree on this one. As an example, fetchmail is delivered
> as a .tar.gz file as well as a src.rpm.

fetchmail is a completely independent program.  Installing fetchmail
won't change the behavior of other programs, and possibly make them
stop working.  Installing a new gcc package with a binary-incompatible
C++ library is another matter, one best left to the folks who put out
the distribution.

> Is there anything else I can say to help stimulate the production of gcc
> in both forms?

Even if we wanted to do it, there's no one that we can order to do the job
(the release manager and principal developers have their hands full and,
to the extent that they have free time, would prefer to improve the
compiler to dealing with packaging issues).  It would need to be done by a
skilled, careful volunteer who would not announce the result until he/she
had conducted thorough testing.  libstdc++/libc collisions are a frequent
problem on Linux, and this has to be managed carefully when doing binary
distributions.

Even then, the RPM should not install the new compiler in /usr/bin,
wiping out the system compiler.  For one thing, people would no longer
be able to build Linux kernels without manual intervention (as one
must specify -fno-strict-aliasing to build the kernel correctly).

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Steven W Orr]

I'm inclined to agree on this one. As an example, fetchmail is delivered
as a .tar.gz file as well as a src.rpm. Lots of software is now coming
that way. When I install *anything* I always look for an rpm to install
from. *If* the tar.gz file is properly set up, i.e., if configure really
works 100% correctly, then the spec file for the rpm, by definition,
becomes trivial. I'm not going to go over the pros and cons of rpm vs. tgz
but I think it's a safe bet that anyone who doesn't use rpm is running on
a system that's just not rpm based. If you have it you use it without
question.

Is there anything else I can say to help stimulate the production of gcc
in both forms?

-- 
----------Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana.----------------
--------Stranger things have happened but none stranger than this.-------------
Steven W. Orr      steveo@world.std.com     <site of former bang addr:-)>
---------------"Listen to me! We are all individuals."-------------------------

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Igor Markov wrote:

=>
=>  John,
=>
=>    thanks... what you are saying makes sense, but my
=>  main suggestion was that egcs maintainers consider
=>  ensuring the availability of good RPMs. This may 
=>  include contacting someone who can pack RPMs, or
=>  learning the RPM tricks or... talking to RedHat,
=>  whatever. Please do not consider this as "making
=>  binaries for every trashy system", but rather
=>  "ensuring the utility to major customers".
=>  I don't suppose many windows applications depend
=>  on gcc and libs, neither on Solaris or HP-UX.
=>  gcc is the default compiler on Linux. Things 
=>  are very difft here.
=>
=>						Igor
=>

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Benjamin Scherrey]

Igor Markov wrote:
> 
>   John,
> 
>     thanks... what you are saying makes sense, but my
>   main suggestion was that egcs maintainers consider
>   ensuring the availability of good RPMs. This may
>   include contacting someone who can pack RPMs, or
>   learning the RPM tricks or... talking to RedHat,
>   whatever. Please do not consider this as "making
>   binaries for every trashy system", but rather
>   "ensuring the utility to major customers".

	Igor... "major customers" write checks.

	Ben Scherrey

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Mike Stump]

> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 16:57:56 -0700
> From: Igor Markov <imarkov@cs.ucla.edu>

>   2. You can contact people who can do this
>  
>    Keeping a mailing list for people who can ensure that binaries
>    are available isn't hard.

Yes, it isn't, and we do this.  It is called gcc-announce, and
anyone and everyone that cares to be on it is already on it.

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 37A8D384.C2E697FE@cs.ucla.edu >you write:
  >    Saying that the matrix of distributions is too big makes little sense.
  >    I'd expect at most a few dozens configurations. Keeping a mailing list
  >    for people who can ensure that binaries are available isn't hard.
It is.  As the person in charge of release logistics, this is a huge
project and not one we are going to take on.

Sorry, but that's life.  Stop whining.  If you don't like the RPMs complain
to the people who made them, but do not cc us on it, this is not our problem.

jeff

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Joe Buck]

>   somehow, I don't see the explanations making sense...
>   
>   Joe is essentially saying "use at your own risk"... 
>      that's not very helpful

OK, I'll help you.  I'll tell you exactly how to get gcc-2.95 running
on your system.  These instructions assume that you have the development
tools installed (e.g. you have gcc, make and friends).

1. Download the tar file.  You will have a big file named gcc-2.95.tar.gz.

2. Unpack it.  Type 
	tar zxf gcc-2.95.tar.gz

3. Type
	cd gcc-2.95

4. Type
	./configure

5. Type
	make bootstrap-lean

6. (As a user that has permission to write /usr/local): type
	make install

You now have gcc-2.95 in /usr/local/bin/gcc .

Note that this method will give you a statically linked libstdc++.a,
so your binaries will be large.  But since you don't appear to be
particularly competent, this will be the safest method to keep you
from hosing your system (breaking existing C++ executables by adding
an incompatible libstdc++).

If you do this and find that you have problems, read the FAQ.

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Igor Markov]

  ok... last email on this
 
  1. Joe, the author of buggy RPMs is on the cc: of all the messages,
     including yours.     

>  Package management is important, but is not the job of the GCC team. 

  2. You can contact people who can do this
 
   Saying that the matrix of distributions is too big makes little sense.
   I'd expect at most a few dozens configurations. Keeping a mailing list
   for people who can ensure that binaries are available isn't hard.

   Finally, if you guys are stressed out and don't have time, 
   why don't you just put a disclaimer on egcs site ---- 
   "will be done later", so that I don't really plan on using gcc
   (aftering getting burnt by expecting a release in the first half
    of July).
 
								Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Joe Buck]

>    Linux is one of major GNU "customers" and egcs was trusted to become
>    the official version of gcc by GNU. I would expect this assumes some
>    responsibility.

Yes.  GCC 2.95 was thoroughly tested on Red Hat 6.0.

>    I am very surprised that you are trying to marginalize a common
>    platform and explicitely refuse to ensure consistent effort.

Nonsense.  Package management is important, but is not the job of the
GCC team.  It is the job of those who put together distributions.
Complain to them.  The GCC team will not provide binary distributions
for any platform, period (though some member of the team might, on his
own, do so).

Let's say that we did put out an RPM and called it "official".  If we did,
we'd be stepping on Red Hat's turf.  It's up to them to produce a *set* of
RPMs that are consistent with each other, decide on version numbers, etc.

>    P.S. yes, I do understand that everyone is a volunteer and can
>         dissapear forever in 5 mins, but I am not asking you to thank me
>         for sending you  bug reports.

You are sending bug reports to the wrong place.  Send them to the person
who made the RPMs.

And you also need to learn to communicate more politely.  With all of the
stresses of getting this release out and dealing with last-minute FSF
concerns, people are stressed out.  We really don't need to hear insults
from a whiner who messed up his system by his own actions and seeks to
blame others.

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[John Wehle]

>   thanks... what you are saying makes sense, but my
> main suggestion was that egcs maintainers consider
> ensuring the availability of good RPMs. This may 
> include contacting someone who can pack RPMs, or
> learning the RPM tricks or... talking to RedHat,
> whatever. Please do not consider this as "making
> binaries for every trashy system", but rather
> "ensuring the utility to major customers".

A very understandable suggestion clearly stated,
unfortunately the wording on early emails seemed
a little harsh and not as clear.

  1) The RPMs tend to quickly get very platform specific
     which means that it's a very big matrix to support.
     The gcc maintainers are concerned that good RPMs
     are available, however they expect the bulk of the
     responsibility for this to be handled by each OS vendor
     since the OS vendor knows best how to configure
     the software for their system.

  2) Since the gcc maintainers release a source code product
     which anyone can use and / or distribute (as long as the
     copyright is respected), it's difficult for them to act
     as police and prevent RPMs which are not appropriate for
     some people to be placed on ftp sites.  Keep in mind that
     they are somewhat understaffed and overworked as it is ...
     and quite frankly it's not their job.

I expect that RedHat will at some point release
a RPM which will work for you.  Unfortunately it
sounds like what you grabbed wasn't released by
RedHat for your platform.  If it's urgent that
you have the new release *now* then you can:

  1) Try random RPMs and contact whoever built
     the RPM for help.

  2) Try building gcc 2.95 from the original source
     code.  If you run into problems then follow the
     instructions for reporting a bug and someone
     probably will try to help out.

  3) Find / hire someone to help you in this endeavor.

Sorry I can't be of more help (my only RedHat development
system at the moment is 5.2 and it's awaiting a new motherboard).

-- John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Feith Systems  |   Voice: 1-215-646-8000  |  Email: john@feith.com  |
|    John Wehle    |     Fax: 1-215-540-5495  |                         |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Igor Markov]

  John,

    thanks... what you are saying makes sense, but my
  main suggestion was that egcs maintainers consider
  ensuring the availability of good RPMs. This may 
  include contacting someone who can pack RPMs, or
  learning the RPM tricks or... talking to RedHat,
  whatever. Please do not consider this as "making
  binaries for every trashy system", but rather
  "ensuring the utility to major customers".
  I don't suppose many windows applications depend
  on gcc and libs, neither on Solaris or HP-UX.
  gcc is the default compiler on Linux. Things 
  are very difft here.

						Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Igor Markov]

 
> This is the 1999 version "All the world is a VAX running BSD" syndrome....

   while this is totally unrelated to my questions, I think the
   comparison is somewhat warped.

   Linux is one of major GNU "customers" and egcs was trusted to become
   the official version of gcc by GNU. I would expect this assumes some
   responsibility.

   RPMs are used on most distros, RedHat is one of major distros 
   (statistically most popular?). Also, the PC platform is clearly dominant.
   I doubt that BSD on VAX ever enjoyed such a popularity.

   I am very surprised that you are trying to marginalize a common
   platform and explicitely refuse to ensure consistent effort.
   
  								Igor

   P.S. yes, I do understand that everyone is a volunteer and can
        dissapear forever in 5 mins, but I am not asking you to thank me
        for sending you  bug reports.
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[John Wehle]

> somehow, I don't see the explanations making sense...
> 
> Joe is essentially saying "use at your own risk"... 
>    that's not very helpful

It's hard to troubleshoot a product produced by a third party.
The best people to supply support for that product is those
people who made it.  The product produced by the gcc maintainers
is a source code release and I'm sure that they would be
interest in problems building their product on RedHat.

> It is certainly up to gcc maintainers to know what's new
> in libstc++-2.95 and what problems this may cause. That's
> the help I am trying to get here.

I'm sure that they do know what's new in libstc++-2.95, unfortunately
this isn't what you are asking about.  You are asking about problems
with a specific binary produced by a third party.  It's true that the
third party may have build the binary from gcc source code, however
there's a lot of variables outside of gcc maintainers control which
effect whether the binary in question will be useful for you.  Presumably
these variables are in the control of whoever built the binary.

-- John
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   Feith Systems  |   Voice: 1-215-646-8000  |  Email: john@feith.com  |
|    John Wehle    |     Fax: 1-215-540-5495  |                         |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Alex Buell]

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Igor Markov wrote:

>   It is certainly up to gcc maintainers to know what's new

You are using glibc are you? You may have been bitten by the binary
incompatibility that exist between libraries built with different versions
of gcc.

Solution is to rebuild your glibc. I think. 

Cheers, 
Alex 
-- 

Legalise cannabis today!

http://www.tahallah.demon.co.uk

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < Pine.SOL.4.05.9908041353270.24340-100000@margay.noc.ucla.edu >you 
write:
  >    P.S. For some reason, posts from cs.ucla.edu are rejected
  >         by egcs.cygnus.com -- pretty obnoxious, I'd say.
If it has an open relay, then it is not obnoxious at all and can be easily
solved by having the folks at cs.ucla fix their spam-friendly mail system.

jeff

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Robert Lipe]

Igor Markov wrote:

>    I understand it's not a hacker thing to download binaries,
>    but shouldn't that work? (and why do you want me to necessarily
>    go through the source install)

The product produced by the GCC (nee EGCS) group is a source release.
The GCC group does not provide binary kits for any architecture.  Other
groups package these things up for specific environments with varying
degrees of doc, testing, QA, and even quality.

Problems with any binary distribution you're working should be directed
to the party responsible for that distribution.

Being rude with the GCC development team isn't likely to advance the
state of your effort.


This is the 1999 version "All the world is a VAX running BSD" syndrome....

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Igor Markov]

  somehow, I don't see the explanations making sense...
  
  Joe is essentially saying "use at your own risk"... 
     that's not very helpful

  Steve says those RPMs were probably built on a platform
  different from mine --- but I can compile C just fine, it's
  C++ is giving me problems (all RPMs were compiled on the
  same machine by the same person, the same day).
  
  It seems to me, the issue is that of system libraries
  (libstdc++) and resp. dependencies -- something very
  easy to screw up and potentially fatal for many applications. 

  It is certainly up to gcc maintainers to know what's new
  in libstc++-2.95 and what problems this may cause. That's
  the help I am trying to get here.

	  						Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Steven W Orr]

Sometimes it does work. The problem is that not all rpms are going to be
compatible with all platforms. There might be differences between SUSE,
RH, Debian, Caldera, etc such that the rpm might not work on a platform
that it wasn't built on. In fact, if the rpm doesn't build from src then
that's a good indication that there is a dependency that you are not yet
aware of. Personally, I have my rpm customized so that it produces i686
instructions. If you got the rpm from redhat, then that's an indication
that it was built for *some* sort of red hat system. If you're running
RH6.0 then *usually* you will be able to run rpm's that are specifically
built for 6.0 or are designated as 6.0 update rpms.

BTW, The src install is required in order to do the build. The build
produces the resulting rpms in /usr/src/redhat/RPMS. In this case they
would all end up in the i386 subdirectory.

-- 
----------Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana.----------------
--------Stranger things have happened but none stranger than this.-------------
Steven W. Orr      steveo@world.std.com     <site of former bang addr:-)>
---------------"Listen to me! We are all individuals."-------------------------

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, Igor Markov wrote:

=>
=>> Instead you should have gone to /contrib/libc6/SRPMS and fetched
=>> gcc-2.95-2.src.rpm and then
=>> rpm -i gcc-2.95-2.src.rpm
=>> cd /usr/src/redhat
=>> rpm -ba gcc.spec
=>> rpm -Uvh all the resulting i386.rpm files
=>> Then they would have been made for your machine.
=>
=>   wait.. not so fast!
=>   I have a regular Pentium-150 (not an AMD or Cyrix clone),
=>   and downloaded RPMs from the i386 directory.
=>
=>   I understand it's not a hacker thing to download binaries,
=>   but shouldn't that work? (and why do you want me to necessarily
=>   go through the source install)
=>
=>							Igor
=>

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Igor Markov]

>>        I had a very troublesome morning today, partly due to negligence
>>   of various people, apparently including egcs maintainers etc.
>
>Nonsense.  Your troubles are because of your own action and no one else's.
  
   allright, I shouldn't have downloaded the RPMs... cool
   but don't you think that ensuring correct RPMs on egcs site
   is a prudent measure? (not necessarily making them... there are
   tons of people who RPMize new things as they come out)

> If the RPMs are defective, you can ask Red Hat to remove them if you like.

   with pleasure...

								Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Igor Markov]

> Instead you should have gone to /contrib/libc6/SRPMS and fetched
> gcc-2.95-2.src.rpm and then
> rpm -i gcc-2.95-2.src.rpm
> cd /usr/src/redhat
> rpm -ba gcc.spec
> rpm -Uvh all the resulting i386.rpm files
> Then they would have been made for your machine.

   wait.. not so fast!
   I have a regular Pentium-150 (not an AMD or Cyrix clone),
   and downloaded RPMs from the i386 directory.

   I understand it's not a hacker thing to download binaries,
   but shouldn't that work? (and why do you want me to necessarily
   go through the source install)

							Igor
-- 
  Igor Markov  office: (310) 206-0179   
  http://vlsicad.cs.ucla.edu/~imarkov

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Joe Buck]

>  
>        I had a very troublesome morning today, partly due to negligence
>   of various people, apparently including egcs maintainers etc.

Nonsense.  Your troubles are because of your own action and no one else's.

>    First, I
>   wanted to upgrade egcs to gcc-2.95 on my RedHat-6.0 system. You probably
>   know that things come in "RPM"s for RedHat (a way to install stuff), but
>   nothing was announced on teh RedHat mailing lists or egcs.cygnus.com

That's because the RPMs you installed were not produced or approved by
either the GCC (formerly EGCS) team nor by Red Hat.  Some random person
made them.  That's why they are in the "contrib" directory.  Anyone who
installs such things does so entirely at his or her own risk.

If the RPMs are defective, you can ask Red Hat to remove them if you like.

>   I suggest that egcs maintainers take care of RPMs for gcc-2.95
>   and (a) announce all necessary RPMs and the install sequence on
>   their site, (b) dub the announcement through RedHat RPM lists

Sorry, no.  The GCC team produces a portable compiler for many operating
systems.  It will not do RPMs customized for Red Hat.  That's Red Hat's
job.  Go bug them.

The GCC team does not work for you, and is under no obligation to honor
your demands.  Throwing around offensive language like "negligence"
only makes it less likely that anyone will help you.

The GCC team provides a source distribution only.  You can download it
and compile it yourself if you wish.  If you lack the expertise to do
this, then wait for Red Hat to do it, or hire someone to do it for you.

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[Steven W Orr]

Instead you should have gone to /contrib/libc6/SRPMS and fetched
gcc-2.95-2.src.rpm and then
rpm -i gcc-2.95-2.src.rpm
cd /usr/src/redhat
rpm -ba gcc.spec
rpm -Uvh all the resulting i386.rpm files
Then they would have been made for your machine.

-- 
----------Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana.----------------
--------Stranger things have happened but none stranger than this.-------------
Steven W. Orr      steveo@world.std.com     <site of former bang addr:-)>
---------------"Listen to me! We are all individuals."-------------------------

On Wed, 4 Aug 1999, IGOR LEONIDOVICH MARKOV wrote:

=>
=>  Hi,
=> 
=>       I had a very troublesome morning today, partly due to negligence
=>  of various people, apparently including egcs maintainers etc. First, I
=>  wanted to upgrade egcs to gcc-2.95 on my RedHat-6.0 system. You probably
=>  know that things come in "RPM"s for RedHat (a way to install stuff), but
=>  nothing was announced on teh RedHat mailing lists or egcs.cygnus.com
=>  So, I went to ftp://ftp.redhat.com/contrib and found   gcc-2.95*rpm
=>  gcc-c++-2.95*rpm and the like. Downloaded those. Trying to install..
=>  they conflict w egcs-1.1.2 (that came w Linux). Ok, removed egcs and
=>  egcs-c++ .. updated binutils to the latest...  trying to compile a
=>  C++ hello world program, it can't find iostream.h .. ok, looked around,
=>  found libstdc++ RPMs (including devel). Installed them, but the previous
=>  version was needed by a bunch of programs including KDE and netscape, 
=>  so I have two ATM.
=>    Now, I can compile  cout << " hello" <<endl; 
=>    but it does not run giving me "Illegal instruction (core dumped)"
=>   
=>  RPMs are signed by Hung Quan <binaire@videotron.ca>
=>  (By the way, RPM install complained because it could not find
=>  user binaire... so was installing things as root)
=>
=>  I suggest that egcs maintainers take care of RPMs for gcc-2.95
=>  and (a) announce all necessary RPMs and the install sequence on
=>  their site, (b) dub the announcement through RedHat RPM lists
=>  
=>   thanks,
=>							Igor
=>		
=>

Re: Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[IGOR LEONIDOVICH MARKOV]

  Follow-up... I am able to compile and run a C hello world program,
  so this is likely to be an issue of stdc++

[imarkov@localhost ~]$ rpm -q libstdc++
libstdc++-2.9.0-12
libstdc++-2.95-2        
[imarkov@localhost ~]$

   quite likely, I should just force the upgrade of 2.9,
   but if this fails, many things may not work anymore,
   so I better wait for advice.

   Also, please cc: imarkov@cs.ucla.edu
   because I am not subscribed to the mailing list (reading it
   over the Web)
							Igor

   P.S. For some reason, posts from cs.ucla.edu are rejected
        by egcs.cygnus.com -- pretty obnoxious, I'd say.

Illegal instruction (core dumped) on i586

[IGOR LEONIDOVICH MARKOV]

  Hi,
 
       I had a very troublesome morning today, partly due to negligence
  of various people, apparently including egcs maintainers etc. First, I
  wanted to upgrade egcs to gcc-2.95 on my RedHat-6.0 system. You probably
  know that things come in "RPM"s for RedHat (a way to install stuff), but
  nothing was announced on teh RedHat mailing lists or egcs.cygnus.com
  So, I went to ftp://ftp.redhat.com/contrib and found   gcc-2.95*rpm
  gcc-c++-2.95*rpm and the like. Downloaded those. Trying to install..
  they conflict w egcs-1.1.2 (that came w Linux). Ok, removed egcs and
  egcs-c++ .. updated binutils to the latest...  trying to compile a
  C++ hello world program, it can't find iostream.h .. ok, looked around,
  found libstdc++ RPMs (including devel). Installed them, but the previous
  version was needed by a bunch of programs including KDE and netscape, 
  so I have two ATM.
    Now, I can compile  cout << " hello" <<endl; 
    but it does not run giving me "Illegal instruction (core dumped)"
   
  RPMs are signed by Hung Quan <binaire@videotron.ca>
  (By the way, RPM install complained because it could not find
  user binaire... so was installing things as root)

  I suggest that egcs maintainers take care of RPMs for gcc-2.95
  and (a) announce all necessary RPMs and the install sequence on
  their site, (b) dub the announcement through RedHat RPM lists
  
   thanks,
							Igor