Hi,
I am not a developer but reguralarly compile src.rpm packages on my Mandrake
8.1 system. I was wondering what the difference is between gcc-2.96 and gcc
3.0.
Is it save to remove gcc-2.96 and install gcc3. Or is it saver to stick with
the old gcc-2.96.
Marc
Want to buy your Pack
My advice, which is probably worth just about what you're paying for
it, is to stick with 2.96.
Probably for 99.9% of the programs you are likely to try it with, gcc
3.0 will be fine, and possibly better, than 2.96. But that 0.1% might
be a real killer. 2.96 might not (perhaps) produce as
Basically, our 2.96 is the occupation of a number that was abandoned by the
gcc team. That abandonment came about because another distro occupied the
number. The two came from the CVS development tree at very different times
and do not really resemble each other very much, yet the binaries
On Friday 24 August 2001 10:50, Tom Badran wrote:
Basically, our 2.96 is the occupation of a number that was abandoned by
the gcc team. That abandonment came about because another distro
occupied the number. The two came from the CVS development tree at very
different times and do not
Thanks for answering one question for me: why the current python source rpm
from cooker wouldn't compile on Mandrake 7.2's gcc. I compiled gcc-2.96
source rpm on LM7.2, then recompiled it using 2.96, and now will hopefully be
able to compile the latest python on that platform as well.
--
Im sure many of you share my hatred for this version of gcc. I always found
it bizare that mandrake went down this road. At least in 8.1b they have both
gcc 3 and 2.96. However, 3 has some issues that make it suitable to keep a
2.9 version of gcc about, i just wondered if it is possible to
This is a multi-part message in MIME format...
On Thursday 23 August 2001 19:01, Tom Badran wrote:
Im sure many of you share my hatred for this version of gcc. I always found
it bizare that mandrake went down this road. At least in 8.1b they have
both gcc 3 and 2.96. However, 3 has
On Thursday 23 August 2001 19:01, Tom Badran wrote:
Im sure many of you share my hatred for this version of gcc. I always found
it bizare that mandrake went down this road. At least in 8.1b they have
both gcc 3 and 2.96. However, 3 has some issues that make it suitable to
keep a 2.9 version
Hi,
I got error when trying to compile the kernel using
gcc 2.96; just wonder if I can install
gcc-2.95.2-12mdk.i586.rpm and use it instead.
Thank in advance !
=
S.KIEU
_
http://messenger.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo!
On Thu, 7 Jun 2001, Steve Kieu wrote:
Hi,
I got error when trying to compile the kernel using
gcc 2.96; just wonder if I can install
gcc-2.95.2-12mdk.i586.rpm and use it instead.
2.91.66 is recommended for kernel building.
On Thursday 07 June 2001 12:52, Steve Kieu wrote:
Hi,
I got error when trying to compile the kernel using
gcc 2.96; just wonder if I can install
gcc-2.95.2-12mdk.i586.rpm and use it instead.
Thank in advance !
=
S.KIEU
This is unsurprising. 2.96 is much stricter. You cannot
11 matches
Mail list logo
