home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!agate!forney.berkeley.edu!jbuck
- From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
- Newsgroups: gnu.g++.help
- Subject: Re: Need advice 2.2.2 vs. 2.1
- Message-ID: <17j9unINNo9q@agate.berkeley.edu>
- Date: 27 Aug 92 19:20:55 GMT
- References: <12921@ztivax.UUCP>
- Organization: U. C. Berkeley
- Lines: 31
- NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu
-
- In article <12921@ztivax.UUCP> lauther@ztivax.siemens.com (Ulrich Lauther) writes:
- >I am currently running gcc-2.1 under SCO UNIX on a 486.
- >
- >Is it worth while to switch to 2.2.2, and if I do so, can I use gcc-2.1 to
- >install 2.2.2 or will I have to start from scratch?
-
- For at least the C++ part of the compiler, it's definitely worth it; there
- are many bug fixes, especially for templates, which were almost unusable
- (at least for me) until 2.2.2 (there are still some problems, but most of
- them can now be worked around). Quite a few core dumps have also been
- removed.
-
- You should be able to just build 2.2.2 with 2.1 and use it after the first
- build (rather than bootstrapping and building it twice). Don't forget
- the following warning, from the INSTALL file:
-
- If you are building with a previous GNU C compiler, do not use
- `CC=gcc' on the make command or by editing the Makefile.
- Instead, use a full pathname to specify the compiler, such as
- `CC=/usr/local/bin/gcc'. This is because make might execute the
- `gcc' in the current directory before all of the compiler
- components have been built.
-
- (I suppose you could avoid this problem by having "." come last, rather
- than first, on your path; then you could just say make CC=gcc. Right?).
-
-
-
-
- --
- Joe Buck jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
-