From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10991 invoked by alias); 31 Jan 2002 02:01:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 10919 invoked from network); 31 Jan 2002 02:01:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Jan 2002 02:01:21 -0000 Received: from dibbler.ne.mediaone.net ([24.218.57.139]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16W6XR-0005wp-00 for ; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:01:21 -0500 Received: (from rodrigc@localhost) by dibbler.ne.mediaone.net (8.11.0/8.11.0) id g0V22Mm01761; Wed, 30 Jan 2002 21:02:22 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 01:38:00 -0000 From: Craig Rodrigues To: "Goodwin, Kevin M." Cc: "'gcc@gnu.org'" , "Butler, Richard J." Subject: Re: which GCC version old or new? Message-ID: <20020130210222.A1664@mediaone.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from kgoodwin@spawar.navy.mil on Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 05:36:17PM -0800 X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg01970.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 05:36:17PM -0800, Goodwin, Kevin M. wrote: > Hello GCC Team, > I am currently working on a new project here at SPAWARS system center > S.D. and we will be using RH Linux 7.1 or 7.2. > as our development platform. The code will be entirely ANSI C with RH GLADE > as a GUI. We are trying decide on which > version of GCC to use. I have heard some talk about binary incompatibility > with gcc 2.96. Will GCC 3.0.1 or 3.0.3 be our > best bet? For C development, gcc 2.96-98 from Red Hat should be sufficient. I use that version of the compiler under Red Hat Linux 7.2 every day for my production work. The Red Hat version of gcc 2.96 works well with all the libraries and tools that come as part of the Red Hat Linux distribution, including things like Glade. Since it is a standard part of their distribution, it makes deploying your binaries on standard Red Hat Linux 7.2 systems much easier. I use the gcc-2.96-98 from Red Hat for my production work, and am satisfied with it. However, the FSF GCC project does not support this version of the compiler: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html If sticking to supported releases from the FSF is important to you, then GCC 3.0.3 or GCC 3.04 (which is due out on February 15, 2002, http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2002-01/msg01355.html) should be sufficient. You may need to compile more of your libraries used with this version of the compiler. This could be an issue for you in terms of deploying binaries on different Red Hat Linux machines, but it is not an insurmountable problem. GCC 3.0.3 and up seem relatively stable. If you program in C++, GCC 3.0.3 offers a much more feature complete Standard C++ and STL library implementation that gcc 2.96, but you did not mention that you would be programming in C++. I would not consider using GCC 3.0.1 for any production level work. This version of the compiler when crashing parts of the Linux kernel. My views do not represent the views of the FSF, nor of Red Hat. I am just relating my opinions to you based on my experiences in using gcc very heavily on the Linux platform over the past year. Good luck! -- Craig Rodrigues http://www.gis.net/~craigr rodrigc@mediaone.net