why not gcc 3.x?

Gerard Beekmans gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Dec 4 17:15:29 PST 2001


On Tue, Dec 04, 2001 at 07:52:22PM -0500, Edward Pinski wrote:
> When gcc 3.1.0 comes out, and nealy every problem is fixed, is the right
> time to switch, if somebody needs gcc3, then we should have someone make a
> hint for installing gcc3, but for the build process, I disagree with using
> gcc3 since after all what's the use of a system, which can't even compile
> glibc?  3.1.0 will hopefully be the end all of gcc3 vs. gcc2.

The gcc-3 installation is pretty straight forward. You can use the
gcc-2.95.3 installation instructions from the current LFS book as a base.
Just change the directory names and that's pretty much it. I recall one or
two configure options that should be changed, or at least could be changed.
But there's no magic to it, all the information can be found in the INSTALL
file that's shipped with gcc.

A hint may be nice for the lazy under us, but I really don't think it to be
necessary considering it's nearly identical to what we are already used to.

-- 
Gerard Beekmans
www.linuxfromscratch.org

-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message



More information about the blfs-support mailing list