|
Home > Archive > Linux Debian support > June 2005 > Two versions of gcc
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Two versions of gcc
|
|
| Al Krieger 2005-06-08, 5:52 pm |
| When I first switched from Mandrake to Debian a month or two ago, it
took me a while to get used to the Debian package management utilities.
Somehow, while playing around with apt-get, aptitude, and synaptic, I
managed to install both gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4! Worse(?) yet, looking
at /usr/bin shows that the gcc-3.3 files are dated May 14, while the
gcc-3.4 files are dated May 5, so it seems as if gcc-3.3 was installed
after gcc-3.4. Thus, if there was any change in library functions or
header files having the same name from gcc-3.3 to gcc-3.4, I have the
gcc-3.3 versions.
Right now, I can't see any particular reason to prefer one version of
gcc to the other, but I feel a little uneasy about having all or parts
of both on the same machine. All of the links in /usr/bin/, gcc, g++,
g77 (Yes, I use Fortran), and gccbug now point to the gcc-3.3 versions.
I have two questions. First, there must have been some reason that GNU
released gcc-3.4, so it would seem that I would be better off with
gcc-3.4 than with gcc-3.3 (leaving gcc-4.0 out of it, for now). Will
my compiles be faster or my object code smaller or faster with gcc-3.4?
Second, if I simply change all the gcc links in /usr/bin/ to their
gcc-3.4 equivalents, will I run into trouble with library functions or
headers? I know that I can simply make the switch and blithely compile
away, but will disaster strike six months or a year from now?
Thanks,
Al Krieger
--
askrieger(at)rcn(dot)com
| |
| Bill Marcum 2005-06-08, 5:52 pm |
| On Wed, 08 Jun 2005 14:38:51 -0400, Al Krieger
<me@home.myhouse.dom> wrote:
> When I first switched from Mandrake to Debian a month or two ago, it
> took me a while to get used to the Debian package management utilities.
> Somehow, while playing around with apt-get, aptitude, and synaptic, I
> managed to install both gcc-3.3 and gcc-3.4! Worse(?) yet, looking
> at /usr/bin shows that the gcc-3.3 files are dated May 14, while the
> gcc-3.4 files are dated May 5, so it seems as if gcc-3.3 was installed
> after gcc-3.4. Thus, if there was any change in library functions or
> header files having the same name from gcc-3.3 to gcc-3.4, I have the
> gcc-3.3 versions.
>
No problem. If you installed them both with apt, you can uninstall
either or both the same way. You can find changelogs for any installed
Debian package in /usr/share/doc/<package>
> Second, if I simply change all the gcc links in /usr/bin/ to their
> gcc-3.4 equivalents, will I run into trouble with library functions or
> headers? I know that I can simply make the switch and blithely compile
> away, but will disaster strike six months or a year from now?
>
Let apt take care of /usr/bin. If you keep both versions of gcc, you
can use update-alternatives to set the link for /usr/bin/cc. By the way
gcc 4.0 is available now for Ubuntu, and probably for Sid.
--
Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember, it didn't help
the rabbit.
-- R.E. Shay
| |
| Lawrence DčOliveiro 2005-06-10, 2:46 am |
| In article <7e2kn2-5lu.ln1@don.localnet>,
Bill Marcum <bmarcum@iglou.com.urgent> wrote:
>By the way gcc 4.0 is available now for Ubuntu, and probably for Sid.
That was the version blacklisted by the KDE folks.
| |
| Al Krieger 2005-06-10, 5:47 pm |
| Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
> In article <7e2kn2-5lu.ln1@don.localnet>,
> Bill Marcum <bmarcum@iglou.com.urgent> wrote:
>
>
> That was the version blacklisted by the KDE folks.
That's interesting. I've read at least one review (referenced from
Slashdot) that said that 4.0 wasn't ready for prime time (slower and
fatter code for both 32 and 64 bit processors, IIRC) but I hadn't heard
anything about 4.0 and KDE. Do you have a reference?
--
askrieger(at)rcn(dot)com
| |
| Lawrence DčOliveiro 2005-06-28, 7:47 am |
| In article <zb6dnTpX_OsCXzTfRVn-tQ@rcn.net>,
Al Krieger <me@home.myhouse.dom> wrote:
>Lawrence DčOliveiro wrote:
>
>
>That's interesting. I've read at least one review (referenced from
>Slashdot) that said that 4.0 wasn't ready for prime time (slower and
>fatter code for both 32 and 64 bit processors, IIRC) but I hadn't heard
>anything about 4.0 and KDE. Do you have a reference?
<http://news.com.com/ Experts+work+t.../>
+source/2100
-7344_3-5698179.html>
|
|
|
|
|