Re: Upgrade GCC

[teg redhat com (Trond Eivind Glomsrød)]

Robert Dege <rcd amherst com> writes:

> > >  I then upgraded to 3.1 (which caused nothing but
> > > nightmares there on in).  Not only did MPlayer not compile, but other
> > > programs that did compile correctly, caused unknown seg faults, and
> > > other various disturbances.  But I chalked that up to beta releases.
> > 
> > Yes. It's not binary compatible with the old one either, so it will break.
> 
> Binary compatible?  care to elaborate?  I don't understand what you're
> trying to say here.

For C++, no version of gcc has been compatible with another.  Same
version of gcc, but compiled on different versions of glibc, are also
incompatible. 
 
> > > So as a last resort, I downgraded to 2.95.  I haven't had a problem
> > > since. 
> > 
> > It's not binary compatible with gcc296 (or other versions)
> > wrt. C++. It also has worse performance, more bugs and poorer C++
> > conformance (and of course, doesn't run at at all on IA64)
> 
> I guess that's why ver 2.95 < 2.96.  I'd have to question the whole
> revision numbering system if 2.96 didn't have some form of improvement
> or fix over 2.95.
> 
> I think my whole beef is that 2.96 is a RedHat standard, not a Linux
> standard.  ie:, gcc-296 is only offered in rpm format (feel free to
> correct me here if I'm wrong).

The SRPM contains a tarball plus nicely separated patches. Shouldn't
be any problem.

-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.