Quoth Jerry McBride: > > I tried that under gentoo and I failed. Therefore I just stuck with the gcc I > compiled. Now some of my personal observations in regards to gcc 3.3. That > version is still considered the cutting edge of development. I've had some > problems getting certain programs to compile that usually ended up with gcc > segfaulting. Not pretty. That said, gcc version 3.2.3 has been real stable > and has yet to have any internal compile problems or errors. However, some > very old sources will not compile with it or any of the 3.x compilers. So
That's more an issue with the sources than the compiler. GCC has gotten progressively better about standards compliance > far, nothing important has failed to compile, just odd stuff like old games, > etc. Be aware, your milage may vary... > > One very big gotcha in moving from 2.9.x to 3.x.x... if you recompile your > glibc or anything else critical to system operations, you can never go back > to the 2.9.x series of gcc as the new compiler generates version specific > libraries... Bah. Then GCC was built with the version-specific-libs switch, and it shouldn't have been, for precisely this reason. That said, there *are* some issues of ABI incompatbility between 3.2 and 3.3 and the way it interacts with the GNU C library, but that's a matter for the GCC and GLIBC folks to settle in the parking lot... Kurt -- Computers are not intelligent. They only think they are. _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
