Re: would a gcc by any other name still smell?

Re: would a gcc by any other name still smell?

[Kate Hedstrom]

> > Doing it is just as easy as having two FSF gcc versions around.  On
> > our machines here, I have 2.7.2 as the default gcc, and if I want
> > egcs, I use 'gcc -V egcs-2.90.17'.  works like a charm.
> 
> Unfortunately, this solution does not work so great.  The standard C++
> libraries are located at the exact same location on the file system
> for both compiler versions by default.

My problem is more with the C++ include files.  If you leave the 2.7.2
ones lying around in /usr/local/lib/g++-include, they are found before
the egcs ones in /usr/local/include/g++.  I have had to delete the old
ones or use a different --prefix for one of the versions.  Any other
solutions?

Kate

Re: would a gcc by any other name still smell?

[Manfred.Hollstein]

On Tue, 25 November 1997, 08:59:18, kate@ahab.rutgers.edu wrote:

    > > Doing it is just as easy as having two FSF gcc versions around.  On
    > > our machines here, I have 2.7.2 as the default gcc, and if I want
    > > egcs, I use 'gcc -V egcs-2.90.17'.  works like a charm.
    > 
    > Unfortunately, this solution does not work so great.  The standard C++
    > libraries are located at the exact same location on the file system
    > for both compiler versions by default.
    
    My problem is more with the C++ include files.  If you leave the 2.7.2
    ones lying around in /usr/local/lib/g++-include, they are found before
    the egcs ones in /usr/local/include/g++.  I have had to delete the old
    ones or use a different --prefix for one of the versions.  Any other
    solutions?
    
Yes, see < http://www.cygnus.com/ml/egcs-bugs/1997-Oct/0197.html >.

--
 Manfred Hollstein                               Alcatel, Dept. US/EC4
 < mailto:Manfred.Hollstein@ks.sel.alcatel.de >    Lorenzstrasse 10
                                                 70435 Stuttgart
 Public PGP key on request                       Germany

Re: would a gcc by any other name still smell?

[Martin von Loewis]

> [I won't go into details, but the answer involves configuring with
> different values of --prefix, plus appropriate use of symlinks and PATH.
> Using the program-transform feature may also be useful, but
> I don't know the details of that.]

In particular, I think --program-suffix=3 might work well, although
I did not test that (it should give you gcc3).

Regards,
Martin

Re: would a gcc by any other name still smell?

[Loren J. Rittle]

In article < 199711241802.NAA06983@franck.Princeton.EDU >,
Tim Hollebeek <tim@wagner.princeton.edu> writes:

> Doing it is just as easy as having two FSF gcc versions around.  On
> our machines here, I have 2.7.2 as the default gcc, and if I want
> egcs, I use 'gcc -V egcs-2.90.17'.  works like a charm.

Unfortunately, this solution does not work so great.  The standard C++
libraries are located at the exact same location on the file system
for both compiler versions by default.

My next e-mail contains a useful patch to this problem going forward.

Regards,
Loren

Re: would a gcc by any other name still smell?

[Tim Hollebeek]

Robert Lipe writes ...
> 
> (or something like that. :-)
> 
> If you type 'make install' on egcs, you get a c compiler that
> calls itself 'gcc'.
> 
> If we do this, we're damned because it's not the FSF release and
> it would make it difficult to have both EGCS and GCC installed at
> the same time.

Doing it is just as easy as having two FSF gcc versions around.  On
our machines here, I have 2.7.2 as the default gcc, and if I want
egcs, I use 'gcc -V egcs-2.90.17'.  works like a charm.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek                           | "Everything above is a true
email: tim@wfn-shop.princeton.edu       |  statement, for sufficiently
URL: http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim |  false values of true."

Re: would a gcc by any other name still smell?

[Joe Buck]

>   > If we do this, we're damned because it's not the FSF release and
>   > it would make it difficult to have both EGCS and GCC installed at
>   > the same time.

Use different paths for the two compilers.  e.g. configure the egcs
compiler as --prefix=/usr/local/egcs , and then if you like, say

ln -s /usr/local/egcs/bin/gcc /usr/local/bin/egcs-gcc

> You can install them both, the version #s are different (on purpose) and
> select them via -V switches -- similarl to using gcc -V 2.6.3 or gcc -V 2.7.2
> to select gcc-2.6.3 or gcc-2.7.2.

Beware -- the -V switch isn't going to work if you're also trying to
switch between two different versions of the C++ library.

Re: would a gcc by any other name still smell?

[Robert Lipe]

> >   > If we do this, we're damned because it's not the FSF release and
> >   > it would make it difficult to have both EGCS and GCC installed at
> >   > the same time.

There have been multiple responses to this that are all technically
correct and obvious to many on this list, but not the unwashed masses.

> Use different paths for the two compilers.  e.g. configure the egcs
> compiler as --prefix=/usr/local/egcs , and then if you like, say

The point is that it's "difficult" becuase it requires a non-zero
amount of user intervention and violate the "principle of least 
suprise" when typing 'configure ; make all install' clobbers the 
user's installed other compiler.  (Or a make all install of that 
other one clobbers parts of egcs.)

I don't see a particularly appealing solution at this point, but I 
think we should at least mention it somewhere so when the user screws
their system, we can point to a file and say "Told you so". :-)

RJL

Re: would a gcc by any other name still smell?

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 199711241739.JAA20497@atrus.synopsys.com >you write:
  > 
  > >   > If we do this, we're damned because it's not the FSF release and
  > >   > it would make it difficult to have both EGCS and GCC installed at
  > >   > the same time.
  > 
  > Use different paths for the two compilers.  e.g. configure the egcs
  > compiler as --prefix=/usr/local/egcs , and then if you like, say
  > 
  > ln -s /usr/local/egcs/bin/gcc /usr/local/bin/egcs-gcc
Yup.  Another approach.  Probably better because of the C++ library issues
that I forgot about.

I'll see what kind of verbage I can come up with for this one :-)

jeff

Re: would a gcc by any other name still smell?

[Per Bothner]

Robert Lipe <robertl@dgii.com> wrote:
> If we do this, we're damned because it's not the FSF release and
> it would make it difficult to have both EGCS and GCC installed at
> the same time.

Perhaps this should be listed as an FAQ:

Q:  How do I install two different versions of Gcc (such as an experimental
    version as well as a stable version)?

[I won't go into details, but the answer involves configuring with
different values of --prefix, plus appropriate use of symlinks and PATH.
Using the program-transform feature may also be useful, but
I don't know the details of that.]

	--Per Bothner
Cygnus Solutions     bothner@cygnus.com     http://www.cygnus.com/~bothner

Re: would a gcc by any other name still smell?

[Jeffrey A Law]

  In message < 19971123152653.61402@dgii.com >you write:
  > If you type 'make install' on egcs, you get a c compiler that
  > calls itself 'gcc'.
Correct.

  > If we do this, we're damned because it's not the FSF release and
  > it would make it difficult to have both EGCS and GCC installed at
  > the same time.
Kinda.  That's life.  We discussed changing the install name, but it doesn't
seem to be the right thing to do at this time.  Depending on where all the
pieces fall this can be revisited in the future.

  > Has a plan been forumalated?   Are we going to force users to either
  > choose or the other or use a funky build process for one or the other?
You can install them both, the version #s are different (on purpose) and
select them via -V switches -- similarl to using gcc -V 2.6.3 or gcc -V 2.7.2
to select gcc-2.6.3 or gcc-2.7.2.

jeff

would a gcc by any other name still smell?

[Robert Lipe]

(or something like that. :-)

If you type 'make install' on egcs, you get a c compiler that
calls itself 'gcc'.

If we do this, we're damned because it's not the FSF release and
it would make it difficult to have both EGCS and GCC installed at
the same time.

If we don't do this, we're damned becuase so many pacages expect
the "good" compiler to be named 'gcc' and favor it over anything
else it finds.

Has a plan been forumalated?   Are we going to force users to either
choose or the other or use a funky build process for one or the other?

RJL