Michael Stassen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Trond Eivind Glomsrød wrote: > > > On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Ireneusz Piasecki wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > It is very interesting, what are you wwriting, but: > > > > > > > > > " To determine if you should be concerned about this compiler issue, execute > > > gcc -v from the command prompt on your system. If the compiler reports > > > version 2.96, then there is a problem (this is the case, for example on RH > > > 7.x series or Mandrake 8.x). In this case, you should not try to compile > > > your own binary before downgrading to one of the compilers mentioned above. > > > You should also NOT use the MySQL server provided with your distribution -- > > > as this copy of MySQL was compiled with the same ill-advised compiler > > > version. " > > > this is from http://www.mysql.com/downloads/mysql-3.23.html > > > I understud, don't compile mysql with 2.96 of gcc. > > > I'm confiused. > > > > > > The query is: Compile server mysql with 2.96 or not ? > > > > 2.96RH. It's more widely used than gcc3 (which has had grave problems, but > > have been stabilizing) and gcc 2.95 (which is also rather bad...)[1] would > > definitely be the one I recommend. We trust it enough that when we upgrade > > the compiler to gcc 3.1 someday in the future, the kernel will probably > > stay with gcc 2.96RH. > > > > [1] It's the standard compiler for both RHL and Mandrake > > I find this rather unhelpful, as it really doesn't answer the question. > I understand that as a RH representative, you stand by the decision to use > gcc 2.96, but no matter how wonderful you think it is, the MySQL > directions explicitly state not to use it, because "Several of our users > have reported random crashes and table corruption with MySQL binaries > compiled with gcc 2.96 on the x86 Linux platform."
None of these have been brought to our attention or documented. Note that the official ones use a different, statically linked version of glibc as well as a very old compiler. > Has this issue been resolved? If so, the directions should be > updated. If not, I question the helpfulness of advising people to > ignore the directions. > > I have no interest in the arguments over whether 2.96 was a good idea or > not, and I take you at your word when you tout the merits of 2.96, but > that's not the question here. The question is which compiler to use for > *mysql*. The list of people with stable copies of mysql compiled with gcc > 2.95.3 is long, and it includes people who had problems with copies > compiled with 2.96. Personally, I have no idea whether that's because of > a flaw in gcc 2.96 or in mysql, but it's a moot point until it's found and > fixed. Has it been? No issues in interaction between gcc 2.96RH and MySQL has been identified since just after the release of Red Hat Linux 7 a year and a half ago (we submitted fixes for these to the MySQL team, and they have been included since the 3.23.midtwenties or so). A generic issue with MySQL is that MySQL seems more stable when compiled with "-fno-rtti -fno-exceptions" regardless of the compiler version. The newest rpms at http://people.redhat.com/teg/mysql/ are compiled that way, older ones aren't. Still haven't heard of any issues or experience any myself. FWIW, I've ran quite a few tests (the regression tests, the benchmarks etc) with no stability problems whatsoever. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
