GCC 2.96 and "-march=i686"

[Daihard]

Charles Wilkins <2boxers_at_comcast.net> wrote:

> I do recall there being issues with GCC 2.96, which was not an
> official gcc release.
>
> Install a new native compiler and this problem should go away.
> Charles

Hi Charles.

Thanks for the quick response. As for installing a new version of GCC, my
concern is, what will happen to all the current applications that were
built to run on my system? For instance, the entire KDE depends upon glibc
2.2.5 AFAIK, and GCC 3.x requires glibc 2.3. If I install GCC 3.x (and
glibc 2.3), will KDE stop working? Or am I missing anything?

Thanks again,
Dai

--
Daigoro F. Toyama
RLU #281828
KDE 3.0.5 / RedHat 7.3 (kernel 2.4.20-13)
Mozilla Firebird 0.6.1+ (2003-08-06)

[Charles Wilkins]

On Thu, 07 Aug 2003 05:52:50 GMT, Daihard <daihardM3NO@SPAMyahoo.com>
wrote:

>Charles Wilkins <2boxers_at_comcast.net> wrote:
>

>> I do recall there being issues with GCC 2.96, which was not an
>> official gcc release.
>>
>> Install a new native compiler and this problem should go away.
>> Charles

>
>Hi Charles.
>
>Thanks for the quick response. As for installing a new version of GCC, my
>concern is, what will happen to all the current applications that were
>built to run on my system? For instance, the entire KDE depends upon glibc
>2.2.5 AFAIK, and GCC 3.x requires glibc 2.3. If I install GCC 3.x (and
>glibc 2.3), will KDE stop working? Or am I missing anything?
>
>Thanks again,
>Dai

installing a new compiler is not the same is installing a new c
library.

upgrading glibc is no small task and you dont have to do it.

you can install your compiler into an isolated directory and call it
up for use to compile new programs.

old programs will continue to run because you are not removing any
libraries from your system, just adding a new compiler and its
associated libraries to its own directory.

read the install instructions carefully so you can understand how to
build gcc. it isnt hard, but keep in mind gcc is not the same thing
as glibc.

if you have software that requires a version of glibc that isnt on
your system, then consider upgrading to a newer version of linux.

upgrading glibc is painful and can be frustrating if you dont know
exactly what requires what in order to run.

building a new native compiler on the other hand is something most
anybody can do by carefully really the install instructions.

good luck
Charles

[stephan beal]

Daihard wrote:

> The binaries are produced fine with this switch. However, the executable
> will not run. I am wondering if this is a bug in GCC 2.96? The exact
> same switch on GCC 3.2 (RH 8) works fine.

Keep in mind that only RedHat distributed gcc 2.96, and that the GNU team
has never released that version (check ftp.gnu.org). To me this is a clear
statement that 2.96 "is not worthy" and should not be used.

--
----- stephan beal
Registered Linux User #71917 [url]http://counter.li.org[/url]
I speak for myself, not my employer. Contents may
be hot. Slippery when wet. Reading disclaimers makes
you go blind. Writing them is worse. You have been Warned.

[Daihard]

Charles Wilkins <2boxers_at_comcast.net> wrote:

> upgrading glibc is no small task and you dont have to do it.
>
> you can install your compiler into an isolated directory and call it
> up for use to compile new programs.
>
> old programs will continue to run because you are not removing any
> libraries from your system, just adding a new compiler and its
> associated libraries to its own directory.

Thanks again! I am now downloading the source for GCC 3.3. One last
question... If I successfuly build/install GCC 3.3 on my RH 7.3 system,
will the programs that I build with this new compiler run on this machine?

Thanks once again, and regards,
Dai

--
Daigoro F. Toyama
RLU #281828
KDE 3.0.5 / RedHat 7.3 (kernel 2.4.20-13)
Mozilla Firebird 0.6.1+ (2003-08-06)