Re: gcc broken?

[timmons@ezy.net (Bonard B. Timmons III)]

timothy@smasher.rs.itd.umich.edu writes:
> Sigh. All these multitudes of compilers and such are quite confusing. :). I got
> g++272 from slink, after which my compile worked. Thanks!. But g++272 says its
> for backward compatability only. Why should the newest gcc be trying to use a
> version of g++ which claims to only be for backward compatability?

That g++272 helped you proves that gcc did your compilation, _not_ the
"newer gcc" which is called egcc. "e" for experimental, I
think. Supposedly it is better overall than gcc, but my limited
experience is that gcc beats it on performance of compiled code.

There are a couple of ways of making egcc the default. One way is to
do

export CC=/usr/bin/egcc

at the shell prompt before you do the compilation or put it in your
~/.bashrc to have it defined every time you log in. A second way is to
do

su -c 'cd /usr/local/bin ; ln -s ../../bin/egcc gcc'

There is probably a cleaner way, but this should work, since
/usr/local/bin is usually searched for non-root users before /usr/bin.

Bake


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org