[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Why not use GCC 3.0?

I just finished the (long) installation process of a Woody on an AlphaServer and met a lot of problems during and after the install.

The problems I had all resolved when using gcc-3.0, using the "apt-get -b source" method.
That's why I wonder why not use gcc-3.0 on all binary packages for Woody.
The problems I had resolved by themself when I changed the links to gcc, cpp and g++ in /usr/bin to use the 3.0 version.

The problems I met:
- plain kernel 2.2.20, 2.4.17 and 2.4.18 (from kernel.org, and, yes, I needed a more recent kernel because of a Mylex controller in the machine) did not compile, with random compilation errors. - Netatalk ( appears to have a strange bug on 64-bits architectures, however, recompiling it solved this problem for me (bug #123268). The bug has been forwarded to the upstream mainteners (but there doesn't seem to evolve anymore), but the temporary fix is easy to find (as I was able to do it!). Maybe it is even possible to ask for the packaging system to compile with a given gcc version? I'm willing to continue to update my system (apt-get rules!), but I would have to check on each upgrade that it doesn't replace it with a gcc-2.95-compiled version.


PS: Even some of the "unaligned trap" kernel faults on certain programs (like Samba) disappeared when recompiled with gcc-3.0. "login and su" are of those.

Reply to: