SEO
vBulletin Search Engine Optimization
| |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
02-18-2008, 05:19 PM
| ||||
| ||||
 what gcc? Hi there, I'm going to install Slack 9.1 and I know I'll have to choose between installing gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.3.1. I'd like to have the same version that has been used to compile all the packages in the distribution. Is it 3.2.3 or 3.3.1? Thanks for answering. -- hamradio@toglimi.freemail.it ANTI-SPAM: please cut "toglimi." for my real e-mail address. Powered by Linux 2.4.22 on Slackware 9.0 Registered Linux user #291116 http://counter.li.org      |
|
02-18-2008, 05:19 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: what gcc? On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 16:42:02 +0000, HamRadio wrote: > Hi there, > I'm going to install Slack 9.1 and I know I'll have to choose between > installing gcc-3.2.3 or gcc-3.3.1. > I'd like to have the same version that has been used to compile all the > packages in the distribution. > Is it 3.2.3 or 3.3.1? The former with CFLAGS="-02 -march=i486 -mcpu=i686" set. (And i'd think CXXFLAGS="$CFLAGS" as well.) > Thanks for answering. NP. -- -Menno. |
|
02-18-2008, 05:20 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: what gcc? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:03:43 GMT, Menno Duursma <menno@desktop.lan> wrote: >> I'd like to have the same version that has been used to compile all the >> packages in the distribution. >> Is it 3.2.3 or 3.3.1? > > The former with CFLAGS="-02 -march=i486 -mcpu=i686" set. > (And i'd think CXXFLAGS="$CFLAGS" as well.) Did Pat recompile everything this time around? Last I heard, there were still some packages left over from 8.1 in 9.0 that were compiled with GCC 2.95. I'd personally go with GCC 3.3.1... but I like to live closer to the edge than many. :-) -- Rob | If not safe, Email and Jabber: | one can never be free. athlonrob at axpr dot net | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/iGRzhm6KEoOOAe0RAuxaAKCTLJHAf3tihWwIwxYyBZm4dy7dLA CfXWWM +sebZ4A0aJH3wlX1ph630Ys= =mF+Y -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
02-18-2008, 05:20 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: what gcc? On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:13:26 -0700, AthlonRob wrote: > NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 17:03:43 GMT, Menno Duursma <menno@desktop.lan> wrote: >>> I'd like to have the same version that has been used to compile all the >>> packages in the distribution. >>> Is it 3.2.3 or 3.3.1? >> >> The former with CFLAGS="-02 -march=i486 -mcpu=i686" set. >> (And i'd think CXXFLAGS="$CFLAGS" as well.) > > Did Pat recompile everything this time around? I don't think so. > Last I heard, there were > still some packages left over from 8.1 in 9.0 that were compiled with > GCC 2.95. I remember seeing `i386' during install even. > I'd personally go with GCC 3.3.1... but I like to live closer to the > edge than many. :-) I like my boxen to actually work, not take any risk on that :-) -- -Menno. |
|
02-18-2008, 05:20 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: what gcc? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, Oct 11, 2003 at 01:13:26PM PDT, AthlonRob wrote in article <69o9mb.rvf.ln@dsl-gervais-88.web-ster.com>: > Did Pat recompile everything this time around? Last I heard, there were > still some packages left over from 8.1 in 9.0 that were compiled with > GCC 2.95. absolutely not. there are some ancient packages still available, compiled with whatever was out at the time. only things that have to get recompiled will be. Jurgen. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/iKn71ucXIiwNwbURAmWDAJ9YdaJM3cY0ruW6swB2raagE2CRpw CgisSB gc9YiKEQDvaayDH+YVICyGA= =FfmP -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
|
02-18-2008, 05:23 PM
| |||
| |||
| Re: what gcc? In article <pan.2003.10.11.22.34.44.135287@desktop.lan>, Menno Duursma <menno@desktop.lan> writes: > I remember seeing `i386' during install even. > >> I'd personally go with GCC 3.3.1... but I like to live closer to the >> edge than many. :-) > > I like my boxen to actually work, not take any risk on that :-) > Presumably there is somewhere on the system where a default set of compiler flags are specified. Where are they? -- pete@petezilla.co.uk http://www.petezilla.co.uk |
|
02-18-2008, 05:24 PM
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: what gcc? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Peter Chant tempted the fates in alt.os.linux.slackware by rushing in here and proclaiming the following to be true: > Presumably there is somewhere on the system where a default set of > compiler flags are specified. Where are they? /etc/profile - -- Cibao Cu' Ali G. Colibri | "I think it is true for all n. I was just GnuPG Pub Key EC9F1D51 -o) | playing it safe with n >= 3 because I Linux Kernel 2.6.0-t6 /\\ | couldn't remember the proof." -- Baker, Slackenstein 9.0-ish _\_v | Pure Math 351a -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/irrxJ+aEAOyfHVERAhlrAJ9D/MRkmlBqXe35tofPkTEcxB3C3ACcC69N a7T/DT9sQm2ZBIn655gLwgU= =HW+s -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
Linear Mode
