Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't
kelledin at users.sourceforge.net
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
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
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 linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev