SuSE 8.2 I install gcc-2.95.3 and removed gcc-3.3. Kernel 2.5.72 now compiles and runs. It was rather easy to compile and upgrading is enjoyable again. It is available at "http://public.www.planetmirror.com/pub/gnu/" and other places. Look for "gcc-2.95.3.tar.gz" -- 73 de Donn Washburn __ " http://www.hal-pc.org/~n5xwb " Ham Callsign N5XWB / / __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 307 Savoy St. / /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ / Sugar Land, TX 77478 /_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\ LL# 1.281.242.3256 a MSDOS Virus "Free Zone" OS Email: n5xwb@hal-pc.org Info: http://www.knoppix.net
On Saturday 26 July 2003 12:38 pm, Donn aka n5xwb Washburn wrote:
SuSE 8.2
I install gcc-2.95.3 and removed gcc-3.3. Kernel 2.5.72 now compiles and runs. It was rather easy to compile and upgrading is enjoyable again.
It is available at "http://public.www.planetmirror.com/pub/gnu/" and other places. Look for "gcc-2.95.3.tar.gz"
Interesting.... because I've compiled 2.6.0 with the 3.3 that comes with 8.2. No problems.
-- 73 de Donn Washburn __ " http://www.hal-pc.org/~n5xwb " Ham Callsign N5XWB / / __ __ __ __ __ __ __ 307 Savoy St. / /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ / Sugar Land, TX 77478 /_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\ LL# 1.281.242.3256 a MSDOS Virus "Free Zone" OS Email: n5xwb@hal-pc.org Info: http://www.knoppix.net
-- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Donn aka n5xwb Washburn <n5xwb@hal-pc.org> [26 Jul 2003 11:38:10 -0500]:
I install gcc-2.95.3 and removed gcc-3.3. Kernel 2.5.72 now compiles and runs. It was rather easy to compile and upgrading is enjoyable again.
Why don't you go and search for a kernel that can be compiled by 3.3? Now that you've downgraded the compiler, you won't be able to compile most of the C++ applications and/or libraries, at least if they need more then the standard ++ library unless you also compile *all* other libraries written in C++ (Qt, KDE etc.). A very smart move indeed. Why didn't you just install gcc 2.95.3 to another path (and *not* /usr/local as that leads to trouble)? I do that regularly to install different versions of gcc in parallel in order to verify compiler bugs. Philipp
On Sun, 27 Jul 2003, Philipp Thomas wrote:
I install gcc-2.95.3 and removed gcc-3.3. Kernel 2.5.72 now compiles and runs. It was rather easy to compile and upgrading is enjoyable again.
Why don't you go and search for a kernel that can be compiled by 3.3?
Now that you've downgraded the compiler, you won't be able to compile most of the C++ applications and/or libraries, at least if they need more then the standard ++ library unless you also compile *all* other libraries written in C++ (Qt, KDE etc.). A very smart move indeed.
Why didn't you just install gcc 2.95.3 to another path (and *not* /usr/local as that leads to trouble)? I do that regularly to install different versions of gcc in parallel in order to verify compiler bugs.
Is there a good recipe/HOWTO for installing legacy gcc (and glibc) to a different path? (It sounds much harder than compiling kernels and apps) Do Makefiles need to be edited to point to legacy gcc, or can the magic be done by switching environment variables? Only asking. David
David <dcorking@yahoo.fr> [Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:35:06 -0400]:
Is there a good recipe/HOWTO for installing legacy gcc (and glibc) to a different path? (It sounds much harder than compiling kernels and apps)
Do Makefiles need to be edited to point to legacy gcc, or can the magic be done by switching environment variables?
I'd forget about installing different glibc versions in parallel, that's bound to give trouble without end. But every package that uses autoconf offers the option --prefix (by default /usr/local), by which you can pass the prefix used for installation. Philipp
On Monday 28 July 2003 11:39 pm, Philipp Thomas wrote:
David <dcorking@yahoo.fr> [Mon, 28 Jul 2003 17:35:06 -0400]:
Is there a good recipe/HOWTO for installing legacy gcc (and glibc) to a different path? (It sounds much harder than compiling kernels and apps)
Do Makefiles need to be edited to point to legacy gcc, or can the magic be done by switching environment variables?
I'd forget about installing different glibc versions in parallel, that's bound to give trouble without end.
But every package that uses autoconf offers the option --prefix (by default /usr/local), by which you can pass the prefix used for installation.
Philipp
http://linux-sxs.org/upgrading/gcc.html -- Tony Alfrey tonyalfrey@earthlink.net "I'd Rather Be Sailing"
participants (5)
-
Bruce Marshall -
David -
Donn aka n5xwb Washburn -
Philipp Thomas -
Tony Alfrey