Hi there, On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Mithun Bhattacharya wrote:
[snip] > RedHat 7.3 has the notorious gcc 2.96 - no body has been able to > figure out whether it is actually broken or not I guess :). [snip] Whether it's broken or not it was never released, it escaped. :) The developers called it a development release, not to be used in production: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html Until recently I used gcc 2.95 and I had next to no trouble with it, compiling certainly many hundreds (perhaps thousands, didn't count) of all kinds of packages, including almost all versions of Apache, Perl and mod_perl since mid-1999 i.e. (if memory serves) Apache 1.2.19, mod_perl 1.19 and Perl 5.005_03. To my mind there are more programmers in this world than there should be who don't mind warnings in compiler output, but if you have a fussy compiler you'll expect to see the odd warning amongst the slew of messages you get when you build something. Apache, Perl and mod_perl are better than many in this respect. Recently I started to use gcc 3.2 although I never used it to compile mod_perl. I had a few problems with gcc 3.2 - I was mostly compiling kernels and kernel modules - so I upgraded to 3.2.3 which has given me very good service so far. Slower than 2.95 :( but just as fussy. :) It's a real slog to buid the compiler and support stuff on an old system, if you're thinking of doing it I'd advise getting a recent distribution which has at least gcc version 3.0 already in there. Changing libraries can be just as traumatic as changing compilers. I'm using glibc 2.3.1 at present. I've used gcc 3.2.3 to compile Apache 1.3.23 and the latest mod_perl versions (1.27 and the candidate for 1.28), with no problems at all. Using 3.2.3 as yet I've only built Apache with statically linked modules, and that's unlikely to change unless someone offers money. Since the last guy who did that never paid, it would probably need to be cash in advance. (You know who you are... :) 73, Ged.
