Hi CentOS4.2 - Is it possible to have an older version of gcc as well as the one that ships with this OS? I need to compile aspseek to run on this distro but it seems to only like older gcc's any ideas?
On 10/24/05, Tom Brown <tom.brown at goodtechnology.com> wrote:> > Hi > > CentOS4.2 - Is it possible to have an older version of gcc as well as > the one that ships with this OS? I need to compile aspseek to run on > this distro but it seems to only like older gcc's > > any ideas?Yes. You can have more than one version of gcc installed on your system. Take a look at this. http://gcc.gnu.org/install/configure.html _______________________________________________> CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- Take a look at http://copperskull.blogspot.com/ http://www.tekcities.com/copperskull/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051024/7c0f66ea/attachment-0002.html>
On Monday 24 October 2005 16.29, Tom Brown wrote:> Hi > > CentOS4.2 - Is it possible to have an older version of gcc as well as > the one that ships with this OS? I need to compile aspseek to run on > this distro but it seems to only like older gcc'syou can get gcc-3.2.3 from the package compat-gcc-32 (yum install compat-gcc-32) You can also try gcc-4.x from the package gcc4 /Peter> > any ideas?-- ------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Kjellstr?m | National Supercomputer Centre | Sweden | http://www.nsc.liu.se -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051024/b0864806/attachment-0002.sig>
Tom Brown wrote:> Hi > > CentOS4.2 - Is it possible to have an older version of gcc as well as > the one that ships with this OS? I need to compile aspseek to run on > this distro but it seems to only like older gcc's > > any ideas? >4.2 ships with a recent vintage GCC 3 and there's an option to include GCC4. If your program won't compile with a very stable GCC3, then you might want to fix the broken software rather than install an obsolete development environment, no? Cheers,
> you can get gcc-3.2.3 from the package compat-gcc-32 > (yum install compat-gcc-32) > > You can also try gcc-4.x from the package gcc4thanks - thats the version i know this will compile against. Any ideas how to instruct the compiler to user this version of gcc rather than the default?
Not necessarily... gcc 2.9x LOVES my code, and the program built under it runs like a champ. gcc 3.4 barfs on this same source code, so I see this as "Stoopidly Pedantic" on the part of the compiler-writers. Things that work and stop working because of a "better compiler" bring into question the definition of "better". Brian Brunner brian.t.brunner at gai-tronics.com (610)796-5838>>> chrism at imntv.com 10/24/05 10:39AM >>>Tom Brown wrote:> Hi > > CentOS4.2 - Is it possible to have an older version of gcc as well as > the one that ships with this OS? I need to compile aspseek to run on > this distro but it seems to only like older gcc's > > any ideas? >4.2 ships with a recent vintage GCC 3 and there's an option to include GCC4. If your program won't compile with a very stable GCC3, then you might want to fix the broken software rather than install an obsolete development environment, no? Cheers, _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated
"flame" == "stoopidly pedantic"... NOT a discussion I want to get into again. It *is* 5 years after it was written, by folks no longer here, (actually 10 years) and it WORKED FLAWLESSLY when written. Code + compiler -> successful product. The compiler changed, it's current behavior is broken from my point of view! This compiler broken-ness drives a decision to NOT upgrade to the current (dysfunctional) compiler nor the OS it rode in on. Brian Brunner brian.t.brunner at gai-tronics.com (610)796-5838>>> alex at milivojevic.org 10/24/05 12:08PM >>>Quoting "Brian T. Brunner" <brian.t.brunner at gai-tronics.com>:> Not necessarily... gcc 2.9x LOVES my code, and the program built > under it runs like a champ.<flame mode="on"> "Try this and see if compiler or interpretter complains" approach is discutably OK for one-time use Perl scripts. It's a very bad approach for C code that should be used (and, oh my God recompiled) 5 years after it was written. </flame> If your code conforms to ANSI, file a bug with gcc folks. If it doesn't conform with ANSI, it's you who are at fault. Don't blame the compiler for your mistakes of the past. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated
Thanks for the history lessons, Bryan. This suggests to me a GCC flag -fForgive2.9xUsers which would accept syntax and grammar from code valid to the 2.9x compiler (warn rather than barf). This isn't the compat compiler/lib suite (which is a separate option), but is a grace-rather-than-pedantics approach to compiler evolution. Brian Brunner brian.t.brunner at gai-tronics.com (610)796-5838>>> thebs413 at earthlink.net 10/24/05 12:56PM >>>> This compiler broken-ness drives a decision to NOT upgrade > to the current (dysfunctional) compiler nor the OS it rode > in on.Again, blame the GCC 2 developers. *sigh* Blame helps Nowhere... ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated