asterisk users - Oct 2005 - huge problem compiling * on gcc4.x (SUSE 10.0)

Hello to all of you!

I'm very new to this list and to asterisk and stuff at all.
To build my asterisk server I installed a new machine running the new
SUSE Linux 10.0 (retail version on DVD).
I need asterisk (tried 1.0.9), bristuff (off junghanns.net,
-0.2.0-RC8o) and the florz-patch because I have two HFC-S-ISDN cards
in that machine.
Now when it comes to compiling I get a huge bunch of warnings and
stuff, zaptel 1.0.9.2 fails to compile and asterisk 1.0.9 also fails
to compile.

SUSE 10.0 uses gcc 4.0.2 and as I asked in some other mailing list and
forums, that is the reason why * stuff fails to compile.

Is there any stable asterisk version available which does compile fine
on a gcc4.x ?

If not, will the * source be changed to finely compile on gcc 4.x?
If yes, when will that be? (I need the * stuff now).
If not, why not?

What's on with the 1.2.0-beta stuff out there on the asterisk.org webpages?
Does that one compile on gcc4.x ?

Please help! I really need my * box now...

Michael

On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 21:21 +0200, [Ludwig IT-Services - GMAIL ] -
Michael Ludwig wrote:
> Hello to all of you!
> 
> I'm very new to this list and to asterisk and stuff at all.
> To build my asterisk server I installed a new machine running the new
> SUSE Linux 10.0 (retail version on DVD).
> I need asterisk (tried 1.0.9), bristuff (off junghanns.net,
> -0.2.0-RC8o) and the florz-patch because I have two HFC-S-ISDN cards
> in that machine.
> Now when it comes to compiling I get a huge bunch of warnings and
> stuff, zaptel 1.0.9.2 fails to compile and asterisk 1.0.9 also fails
> to compile.
> 
> SUSE 10.0 uses gcc 4.0.2 and as I asked in some other mailing list and
> forums, that is the reason why * stuff fails to compile.
> 
> Is there any stable asterisk version available which does compile fine
> on a gcc4.x ?
> 
> If not, will the * source be changed to finely compile on gcc 4.x?
> If yes, when will that be? (I need the * stuff now).
> If not, why not?
> 
> What's on with the 1.2.0-beta stuff out there on the asterisk.org
webpages?
> Does that one compile on gcc4.x ?
> 
> Please help! I really need my * box now...
On my systems gcc -v gives
gcc version 4.0.1 (4.0.1-5mdk for Mandriva Linux release 2006.0)

I'm compiling and running 1.0.9 and CVS-HEAD.
Warnings are _not_ errors!
What is "and stuff"? 

-- 
Dave Cotton <dcotton@linuxautrement.com>

On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 09:21:09PM +0200, [Ludwig IT-Services - GMAIL ] -
Michael Ludwig said:
> I'm very new to this list and to asterisk and stuff at all.
> To build my asterisk server I installed a new machine running the new
> SUSE Linux 10.0 (retail version on DVD).
> I need asterisk (tried 1.0.9), bristuff (off junghanns.net,
> -0.2.0-RC8o) and the florz-patch because I have two HFC-S-ISDN cards
> in that machine.
> Now when it comes to compiling I get a huge bunch of warnings and
> stuff, zaptel 1.0.9.2 fails to compile and asterisk 1.0.9 also fails
> to compile.
> 
> SUSE 10.0 uses gcc 4.0.2 and as I asked in some other mailing list and
> forums, that is the reason why * stuff fails to compile.
> 
> Is there any stable asterisk version available which does compile fine
> on a gcc4.x ?
> 
> If not, will the * source be changed to finely compile on gcc 4.x?
> If yes, when will that be? (I need the * stuff now).
> If not, why not?
> 
> What's on with the 1.2.0-beta stuff out there on the asterisk.org
webpages?
> Does that one compile on gcc4.x ?
I've been running a * (cvs HEAD) instance on Debian unstable, which has
upgraded to gcc 4. Gcc 4 still has problems compiling the kernel (as of
2.6.12) on debian, and you want to use the same version of the compiler
on the zaptel modules that you do on the kernel. 

I was unable to get a clean compile of the kernel or * with gcc 4.

The good part is that I have gcc 3.3 on the system too, so it's an easy
symlink change. It may be that gcc 3.x is available on suse either by
default or an additional package.

Considering how new gcc 4 is, and how many major changes there were with
it, I personally would wait another 6 months to a year before using it
in production.  I've also read stories that gcc 4 produces slower code
than gcc 3.

I'm sure others will have some insight as well :-)