On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 19:55:37 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 07:03:46AM -0700, Collins wrote: > > On Sun, 10 Nov 2002 08:53:38 -0500 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 11:00:01PM -0500, Brett I. Holcomb > > > wrote: > > > > How do you upgrade from gcc 2.9x to 3.2? Can't that be a > > > > perilous path? > > > > > > You don't "upgrade," really. The default configuration is to > > > install 3.2 in /usr/local, alongside whatever you already have. > > > > > > > The upgrade path is to recompile everything that you have with the > > new compiler. The perilous part of the path is getting the > > sequence right, and anything that has mixed components (compiled > > with and without 3.2) will fail miserably. > > Poppycock. I have a mixed system and no problems whatsoever. >
I suppose it all depends on the meaning of "is," to quote Bill Clinton. Separately compiled components that have no interaction can be compiled with either compiler, and neither is aware of the other, but early adaptors on gentoo did indeed report disastrous results when a mix of components compiled with the two different compilers was attempted (I don't have the details). Putting all that aside, I'm still not convinced that there is any great advantage to the new compiler at present. I ran with the latest gentoo (gcc 3.2 based) for several months with no problems including upgrades (except for the fact that binary plugins for moz, etc., are not available). Now I'm running RH 7.3 which uses the old compiler. I'm not noticing any performance difference on my desktop machine. The last recommendation I read on the 2.5.x development kernel still recommended 2.95.xx. gcc 3.2 does have extra support for the AMD chips, but I have a PIII machine. >From everything I read, the major vendors in their rush to get out 3.2 based products have done their usual sloppy work (not enough testing before release), so I'll let the pioneers fend off the arrows (most of the arrows have nothing to do with 3.2). At some point the mix will change, and there will be a compelling reason to switch to 3.2, and there will be a reliable RH, etc.. distro (gentoo is, of course, just as stable with 3.2 as with the older compiler), but I don't believe that time has come yet. At present, if you want a fully functional browser with all the plugins (many of these are binary only), you need to compile your browser with 2.95.xx, and I can't see screwing around with 2 compilers on my system. This is not meant to discourage those who like to tinker - lord knows I've been bitten by that bug often enough. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area Redhat 7.3 system _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
