From: hlu@luke.eecs.wsu.edu (H.J. Lu) Subject: [A]: 2.3.3 (Re: [Q]: GCC 2.2.2 vs. 2.3.2?) Date: 15 Jan 1993 06:32:12 GMT
In article <1993Jan14.214427.8986@nmsu.edu> jpw@freedom.nmsu.edu writes:
>Okay, I've been running for quite a while a happy linux system (current
>kernel=0.99.1 though I may update in a few days) with GCC 2.2.2d... Some time
>back I downloaded the new libc.so.4.2 because somebody said I should and it
>seemed like a good idea, and everything appears to be working fine...
>
>Now GCC 2.3.2 is out. What major reason is there to upgrade to 2.3.2 instead
>of just staying at 2.2.2, other than to keep up with the state-of-the-art in
>GNU C compilers? I mean, is stuff going to start showing up soon that I can't
>compile because 2.2.2 is too weak, or are my binaries (linked jump with
>libc.so.4.2) going to start breaking with newer kernel revisions? H.J.?
>
As far as I can tell, the C part of gcc 2.2.2 is ok. If you want to use
C++, lots of bugs are fixed in 2.3.3. BTW, you need gcc 2.3.3 to
compile libc 4.2 since it has C++ code. Also I suspect PIC support
in 2.3.3 is better.
H.J.