Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

Kelledin kelledin at
Wed May 8 12:40:48 PDT 2002

Hoo boy....while this thing forks into a flame war...

Let's keep in mind that GCC is designed for people to have multiple versions 
and choose between them with the -V option.  We can simply choose either 
gcc-2.95.3 or gcc-3.1 as the default compiler and include a link to a hint 
for installing optional, non-default versions.

For now, I say we stick with gcc 2.95.3 by default, for the following reasons:

1) gcc-2.95.3 is the recommended compiler for kernel 2.4.10 and up.  Since 
the kernel source is so full of non-portable compiler magic, it becomes 
rather dangerous to use anything but the compiler version recommended by the 
kernel developers.

2) gcc-2.95.3 seems to work with everything beyond LFS, all the way up to KDE 
and Gnome.  We probably won't be able to say the same for gcc-3.1, simply 
because there's a huge gcc-2.95.x codebase that's just not as portable as we 
might like.

Once gcc-3.1 is out, we'll simply update the LFS book with a note explaining 
that while gcc-2.95.3 is the safe default, gcc-3.1 is reported to produce 
faster code in many cases, and give a link to the gcc multi-version hint.  
Each user can decide on his/her/its own.

"If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost 
four figures to fix?"
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