Some clarification is needed:
Arun Ramakrishnan wrote:
> I heard that 2.96 is again a devel version of gcc which is sorta
Not true. It was a CVS snapshot which was hardened and tested by Red Hat
staff. If you have problems compiling your code, chances are the highest
that your code is buggy, see http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html .
> I heard posting saying that we shud downgrade to 2.95 possibly.I
> think with RH 7.1, u no longer need kgcc to compile things
> correctly.gcc itself works.In fact,i heard sby commenting that now
> kgcc seems broke in RH 7.1 and so it is safe to use only gcc in RH
> 7.1;while it was mandatory to use kgcc in RH 7.0!!!!
In Red Hat Linux 7.0 you needed kgcc *only* to compile the kernel (thus
the name) because kernel 2.2 had some bug. This bug got erased in kernel
2.4 so on any system which is no longer using kernel 2.2 you don't need
(and shouldn't use) kgcc (which is called egcs-compat in RHL 7.1) any
longer. Just fix your source code because it won't compile with gcc 3.x
either. See the link above.
> I also heard that binaries produced by gcc 3.0 are going to be
> somewhat incompatible with the older binaries.
Not the binaries. Binaries don't interoperate on symbol level. It's the
libraries (object code) which are difficult. You cannot link to a
library which was compiled with a different gcc version. So you have to
compile the whole project with one compiler: kgcc, gcc 2.96-RH or gcc
3.x. Gcc 3.x should be compatible along version numers... BTW it gets
even worse if you compile C++.
I use gcc 2.96-RH on my RHL 7.1 only, it has worked for me (after I
fixed some of my own code). I won't downgrade, and I'm still reluctant
upgrading to gcc 3.x.
Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/