For close to the last decade or so, I've been developing on OS X and then porting to LINUX. I know there are those who object to this approach, but it works for me. However I noticed that when porting my exception example to LINUX, which involved adding a whopping -rdynamic to the build line, there were technologies missing from my gcc and LINUX installation as compared to what is on OS X 10.6.2. For example, when building LLVM on LINUX, I noticed that ffi and atomic builtins were missing from LINUX and gcc respectively. My question is: What are the minimal packages that are recommended that would bring my LINUX distribution as close as possible to a 32 bit par version of what is on a clean OS X 10.6.2 development environment when developing with LLVM? I'm currently using a CentOS dist., but I'm up for another if that is preferred. On LINUX uname -srvmpio gives: Linux 2.6.18-164.10.1.el5 #1 SMP Thu Jan 7 20:00:41 EST 2010 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux, while gcc -v gives: gcc version 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-46) I'm assuming the LLVM build problem with: GCC 4.1.2 20071124 (Red Hat 4.1.2-42), (from the LLVM getting started guide) has disappeared with my release of gcc. Thanks in advance Garrison
On 01/10/2010 03:09 PM, Garrison Venn wrote:> For close to the last decade or so, I've been developing on OS X and then porting to LINUX. I know there are those who object > to this approach, but it works for me. However I noticed that when porting my exception example to LINUX, which involved > adding a whopping -rdynamic to the build line, there were technologies missing from my gcc and LINUX installation as compared > to what is on OS X 10.6.2. For example, when building LLVM on LINUX, I noticed that ffi and atomic builtins were missing from LINUX and gcc > respectively. > > My question is: What are the minimal packages that are recommended that would bring my LINUX distribution as close as possible > to a 32 bit par version of what is on a clean OS X 10.6.2 development environment when developing with LLVM? I'm currently using a > CentOS dist., but I'm up for another if that is preferred. > > On LINUX uname -srvmpio gives: Linux 2.6.18-164.10.1.el5 #1 SMP Thu Jan 7 20:00:41 EST 2010 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux, > while gcc -v gives: gcc version 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-46) >That compiler is rather old. I think there are gcc 4.4 packages for centos. If you want a recent compiler with a recent userland then centos is not a good choice, they are server releases, and stay with old versions of packages for a long time. Something like Debian unstable, or Fedora might be a better choice. Best regards, --Edwin
Yeah, ok, that explains why I am on CentOS. Thanks Edwin. Garrison On Jan 10, 2010, at 12:02, Török Edwin wrote:> On 01/10/2010 03:09 PM, Garrison Venn wrote: >> For close to the last decade or so, I've been developing on OS X and then porting to LINUX. I know there are those who object >> to this approach, but it works for me. However I noticed that when porting my exception example to LINUX, which involved >> adding a whopping -rdynamic to the build line, there were technologies missing from my gcc and LINUX installation as compared >> to what is on OS X 10.6.2. For example, when building LLVM on LINUX, I noticed that ffi and atomic builtins were missing from LINUX and gcc >> respectively. >> >> My question is: What are the minimal packages that are recommended that would bring my LINUX distribution as close as possible >> to a 32 bit par version of what is on a clean OS X 10.6.2 development environment when developing with LLVM? I'm currently using a >> CentOS dist., but I'm up for another if that is preferred. >> >> On LINUX uname -srvmpio gives: Linux 2.6.18-164.10.1.el5 #1 SMP Thu Jan 7 20:00:41 EST 2010 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux, >> while gcc -v gives: gcc version 4.1.2 20080704 (Red Hat 4.1.2-46) >> > > That compiler is rather old. I think there are gcc 4.4 packages for centos. > > If you want a recent compiler with a recent userland then centos is not > a good choice, > they are server releases, and stay with old versions of packages for a > long time. > Something like Debian unstable, or Fedora might be a better choice. > > Best regards, > --Edwin >