[SLE] What is egcs and why does g++ use it?
I've finally gotten past a maddening problem in attempting to build gfontview. It seems that gfontview uses c++, which is equivalent to g++, which works (at least as configured under SuSE 6.2) only if egcs is installed. So what is egcs? How does it relate to gcc? And why does c++ use egcs rather than gcc? I love Linux, but one of the frustrating things about the source distributions it relies on is how sensitive the build process is to obscure details about the versions of installed compilers. Paul Abrahams -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
"Paul W. Abrahams" wrote:
I've finally gotten past a maddening problem in attempting to build gfontview. It seems that gfontview uses c++, which is equivalent to g++, which works (at least as configured under SuSE 6.2) only if egcs is installed.
So what is egcs? How does it relate to gcc? And why does c++ use egcs rather than gcc?
Go to http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html My understanding is that egcs was an offshoot of gcc. Since Gcc2.95 they have been folded together. Actually egcs became 2.95. So the current gcc [2.95.2] is actually egcs. I don't know why the c++ shipped with SuSE uses egcs instead of gcc. I don't see egcs installed in /usr/bin on my system but c++/g++ are there. Nick -- -------------------------------------------------- Nick Zentena "Microsoft has unjustifiably jeopardized the stability and security of the operating system." U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson Nov 5/1999 -------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Nick Zentena wrote:
"Paul W. Abrahams" wrote:
I've finally gotten past a maddening problem in attempting to build gfontview. It seems that gfontview uses c++, which is equivalent to g++, which works (at least as configured under SuSE 6.2) only if egcs is installed.
So what is egcs? How does it relate to gcc? And why does c++ use egcs rather than gcc?
Go to http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/gcc.html
My understanding is that egcs was an offshoot of gcc. Since Gcc2.95 they have been folded together. Actually egcs became 2.95. So the current gcc [2.95.2] is actually egcs. I don't know why the c++ shipped with SuSE uses egcs instead of gcc. I don't see egcs installed in /usr/bin on my system but c++/g++ are there.
Do you have any ideas on rationlizing the installation so that it works the way the Gnu folk apparently intended? In particular, I'd like to have c++ call the current gcc. I'll download stuff from gnu.org if need be, though I'd prefer to use SuSE downloads because there are likely to be fewer configuration problems down the road. Paul Abrahams -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
"Paul W. Abrahams" wrote:
Do you have any ideas on rationlizing the installation so that it works the way the Gnu folk apparently intended? In particular, I'd like to have c++ call the current gcc. I'll download stuff from gnu.org if need be, though I'd prefer to use SuSE downloads because there are likely to be fewer configuration problems down the road.
Just go grab the tarball. With Suse 6.3 Gcc 2.95.2 compiled without any problems. With Suse 6.1 I only got 2.95.1 to work. Now I didn't try very hard to get the latest version working with Suse 6.1. It just takes so long to compile. Oh did I mention it takes a long time to compile the source. Makes a kernel compile look like it happens in an instant. At least on my two machines. If you don't fiddle with the makefile everything gets put into /usr/local/bin. That means all the Suse stuff is still in /usr/bin. I haven't found anything that didn't work with the new compilers but if I did all I would need to do is rename the stuff in /usr/local/bin and let the stuff in /usr/bin to do thier job. My understanding is SuSE doesn't want to ship the newer gccs until they are stable on all the platforms that Suse ships for. Makes sense for them to want only one basic product to support. Nick -- -------------------------------------------------- Nick Zentena "Microsoft has unjustifiably jeopardized the stability and security of the operating system." U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson Nov 5/1999 -------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
When I installed SuSE 6.3 I knew I'd want to compile sources and try a little programming. What I didn't (and still don't!) know was what all the packages were. When in doubt I installed it. I have been able to compile C and C++ programs, so I didn't do too badly. Looking now I appear to have several C compilers, egcs, g20egcs, g20gpp, gcc, and gpp. The descriptions that appear in Yast are too brief for me to tell which, if any, of these are superfluous. Can I safely delete any of these? TIA On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Nick Zentena wrote:
"Paul W. Abrahams" wrote:
Do you have any ideas on rationlizing the installation so that it works the way the Gnu folk apparently intended? In particular, I'd like to have c++ call the current gcc. I'll download stuff from gnu.org if need be, though I'd prefer to use SuSE downloads because there are likely to be fewer configuration problems down the road.
Just go grab the tarball. With Suse 6.3 Gcc 2.95.2 compiled without any problems. With Suse 6.1 I only got 2.95.1 to work. Now I didn't try very hard to get the latest version working with Suse 6.1. It just takes so long to compile. Oh did I mention it takes a long time to compile the source. Makes a kernel compile look like it happens in an instant. At least on my two machines.
If you don't fiddle with the makefile everything gets put into /usr/local/bin. That means all the Suse stuff is still in /usr/bin. I haven't found anything that didn't work with the new compilers but if I did all I would need to do is rename the stuff in /usr/local/bin and let the stuff in /usr/bin to do thier job. My understanding is SuSE doesn't want to ship the newer gccs until they are stable on all the platforms that Suse ships for. Makes sense for them to want only one basic product to support.
Nick
-- -------------------------------------------------- Nick Zentena "Microsoft has unjustifiably jeopardized the stability and security of the operating system." U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson Nov 5/1999 --------------------------------------------------
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- Kenneth R. Kellum -- San Jose State University A scientific random survey demonstrating the value of a university education: Linus Torvalds: Has a degree. Bill Gates: Does not. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
Kenneth Kellum wrote:
When I installed SuSE 6.3 I knew I'd want to compile sources and try a little programming. What I didn't (and still don't!) know was what all the packages were. When in doubt I installed it. I have been able to compile C and C++ programs, so I didn't do too badly.
Looking now I appear to have several C compilers, egcs, g20egcs, g20gpp, gcc, and gpp. The descriptions that appear in Yast are too brief for me to tell which, if any, of these are superfluous.
You can likely delete gcc [I'm assuming it's the 2.7.x version] without any problems. Just tell yast to unistall it. The problem is the word "superfluous". It was mentioned earlier today that 2.0.x series kernels need the older gcc to compile. It wouldn't surprise me if something else needs it. I've got the 2.7.2.3 version of gcc that came with SuSE6.3 installed and 2.95.2. It wastes some diskspace but I'd rather have both available for the odd chance I need them. I don't understand having egcs installed when gcc 2.95.2 is a newer version. But thats IMHO. Nick -- -------------------------------------------------- Nick Zentena "Microsoft has unjustifiably jeopardized the stability and security of the operating system." U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson Nov 5/1999 -------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
"Paul W. Abrahams" wrote:
Do you have any ideas on rationlizing the installation so that it works
way the Gnu folk apparently intended? In particular, I'd like to have c++ call the current gcc. I'll download stuff from gnu.org if need be,
Hello, Kenneth! You can kill g20egcs and g20gpp, but not any others. But if you plan to use Oracle or any commercial software with no source code availability, then you should keep those two - they would be necessary to support old libraries and additional module add-ons. Thanks, Egor. -----Original Message----- From: Kenneth Kellum [mailto:kkellum@pacbell.net] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2000 2:58 AM To: Nick Zentena; abrahams@acm.org; egm@csie.nsys.by Cc: SuSE listserve Subject: [SLE] C++ compilers. WasRe: [SLE] What is egcs and why does g++ use it? When I installed SuSE 6.3 I knew I'd want to compile sources and try a little programming. What I didn't (and still don't!) know was what all the packages were. When in doubt I installed it. I have been able to compile C and C++ programs, so I didn't do too badly. Looking now I appear to have several C compilers, egcs, g20egcs, g20gpp, gcc, and gpp. The descriptions that appear in Yast are too brief for me to tell which, if any, of these are superfluous. Can I safely delete any of these? TIA On Sun, 23 Jan 2000, Nick Zentena wrote: the though I'd
prefer to use SuSE downloads because there are likely to be fewer configuration problems down the road.
Just go grab the tarball. With Suse 6.3 Gcc 2.95.2 compiled without any problems. With Suse 6.1 I only got 2.95.1 to work. Now I didn't try very hard to get the latest version working with Suse 6.1. It just takes so long to compile. Oh did I mention it takes a long time to compile the source. Makes a kernel compile look like it happens in an instant. At least on my two machines.
If you don't fiddle with the makefile everything gets put into /usr/local/bin. That means all the Suse stuff is still in /usr/bin. I haven't found anything that didn't work with the new compilers but if I did all I would need to do is rename the stuff in /usr/local/bin and let the stuff in /usr/bin to do thier job. My understanding is SuSE doesn't want to ship the newer gccs until they are stable on all the platforms that Suse ships for. Makes sense for them to want only one basic product to support.
Nick
-- -------------------------------------------------- Nick Zentena "Microsoft has unjustifiably jeopardized the stability and security of the operating system." U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson Nov 5/1999 --------------------------------------------------
-- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
-- Kenneth R. Kellum -- San Jose State University A scientific random survey demonstrating the value of a university education: Linus Torvalds: Has a degree. Bill Gates: Does not. -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/ -- To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/Support/Doku/FAQ/
* Paul W. Abrahams (abrahams@mbs.valinet.com) [20000123 23:03]:
Do you have any ideas on rationlizing the installation so that it works the way the Gnu folk apparently intended? In particular, I'd like to have c++ call the current gcc.
The current GCC release is 2.95.2, for which we currently offer no SuSE
package. The only way to get that would be to grab the current sources and
compile it yourself. Depending on the languages you want/need, use
--with-languages=. For a current SuSE system, I'd recommend the following
configure switches (assuming you only need C and C++):
./configure --prefix=/usr --enable-shared --enable-threads=posix --enable-languages=c,c++
Then do 'make bootstrap' or 'make bootstrap-lean' if you're a bit short on disk storage.
Philipp
--
Philipp Thomas
* Paul W. Abrahams (abrahams@mbs.valinet.com) [20000123 22:10]:
So what is egcs? How does it relate to gcc?
Egcs was an experimental branch of gcc. Because development of GCC was rather slow and happened behind closed doors, the EGCS project was started. EGCS development was open to everyone, discussions happened on open mailinglists, maintainership was split up, readonly CVS access was offered, regular snapshots were made and a steering committee was setup to make shure that no particular interests could hinder EGCS development. GCC made huge steps forward. g77 (the Fortran77 compiler) and gcj (Java compiler) got integrated, the C++ compiler got ISO compliant. Specially C++ is once again in the top field. Finally the EGCS steering committee took over GCC development and merged in the rest of gcc 2.8.2. From 2.95 there is once again only one FSF compiler, GCC. EGCS effectively doesn't exist anymore, but is here and there used to destinguish between it and the old gcc 2.7.2. For more detail, see http://gcc.gnu.org/gccmission.html.
And why does c++ use egcs rather than gcc?
Because the C++ support of gcc 2.7.2 is by far outdated and isn't standard
compliant. GCC 2.7.2 is only needed to compile 2.0.X kernels. For anything
else, egcs should be used.
Philipp
--
Philipp Thomas
participants (5)
-
abrahams＠mbs.valinet.com -
egm＠csie.nsys.by -
kkellum＠pacbell.net -
pthomas＠suse.de -
zentena＠hophead.dyndns.org