GCC 2.95.3 [LFS/BLFS conflicts]

tchiwam tchiwam at sgo.fi
Tue May 13 05:20:51 PDT 2003

So far I have seen bigger systems using suffixes "gcc-2.95.3,
g????-2.95.3", the PATH thing is just plain ugly, so just add the suffix
2.95.3 and keep the main compiler as 3.x "gcc" other gcc/cc ... should be
dealt in a proper way in BLFS. since it is a SYSTEM component it should be
in /usr and NOT /opt. Separation of docs is dealth with suffixes too...

man gcc-2.95.3 vs man gcc, at least for me it worked.
then I did 2 installation one with gcc-3.2.2 and the same for plain gcc as
the default cc, that way if I upgrade later the default cc, Ill still keep
the old one.

 --program-suffix=FOO    append FOO to installed program names [""]


> > > I don't agree that having two compilers is a pain in the arse. It'll
> > > be put in /opt so it's out of the way and you don't put it in $PATH
> > > unless you really need it. It'll never get in the way. I believe the
> > > pro's far outweigh the con's.
> Either do I, and if you are willing to jump through a couple of small
> hoops when building them you can stick em all in the same prefix...
> Still working on how to handle the two versions of the c++ libs though
> > Who here has *ACTUALLY* had a problem using gcc 3 to compile kernels
> > (and I mean a recent version, not gcc<nearlybutnotquite3fromcvs>)?
> I've had the SMP stuff barf on x86 under CVS 3.3 (admittedly CVS glibc as
> well
> w NPTL but when compiled with 2.95.3 it was happy)

Yes and some arch are picky, if we could trap that fish once and for all.
then later the work would be MUCH easier...

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 mailing list