Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

JorgP jorgp at
Wed May 8 08:53:55 PDT 2002

On Wednesday 08 May 2002 10:03 am, you wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 10:13:08AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> > I KNOW in the past we have held off upgrades (A recent version of yacc
> > and auto-something we held off, because it gave problems with several
> > packages).
> A base LFS system couldn't be compiled properly so we didn't do that one
> upgrade. More importantly, we knew a new version was going to be released
> very soon afterwards so I didnt' feel like upgrading (it was bison) to only
> upgrade it again two weeks later.
> > The compiler is the //foundation// of the system. it should have the
> > LONGEST waiting period of all before acceptance.
> Released is released. It doesnt' matter how long you let gcc-2.95.3 wait,
> it won't get any better or worse. The code is released and static. So the
> only reason to wait very long is if people are very slow to build an LFS
> system with some additions. I can duplicate my workstation build within 24
> hours so I really quickly put gcc-3 through all kinds of motions, tests and
> more tests.
> > does NOT compile everything fine. I've personally written code
> > it f*cked up.
> It will compile most things fine. Just like 2.95.3 will compile most things
> fine, but 3.1 will compile other things better.
> > well, what is your idea of an acceptable delay time for 3.1 inclusion
> > following its release ?
> However long it will take me to re-install my entire workstation and
> servers and test every app a bunch of times. I can do it in a week if I
> take the time to do it (building software itself in a day, testing the
> software to remainder of a week).
> > anything. Its a HUGE and COMPLEX piece of code.
> Yep I totally agree. But theoretical failures don't count with me I'm
> afraid.
> --
> Gerard Beekmans
> -*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-

I used 5.7.02 cvs of gcc 3.1 branch and recompiled LFS on a clean partition 
and everything compiled just fine. I have been running KDE cvs for 24 hours 
now no failures, crashes or weird problems. I am using an AMD 1.33G w/ 512Meg 
ram and 2.4.19pre8-ac1 kernel. No problems to report at all. I think it would 
be a good idea to go ahead and put gcc 3.1 in cvs of LFS and start testing it 
and the apps. I would also like to point yes gcc 3.1 is not released yet, but 
Mandrake has almost adopted it as the system compiler, they just started 
yesterday recompiling all their apps w/ gcc 3.1 5.7.02 cvs. Like everything 
new people tend to resist change, but change is what makes the world go 
around. So my vote is DO upgrade to gcc 3.1.

Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list