Update GCC from 2.95.2: 2.95.3, 3.1.1, or 3.2?

[Tim Wunder]

On 9/18/2002 9:48 AM, someone claiming to be Net Llama! wrote:
 > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Tim Wunder wrote:
 >
 >> OK, Caldera eW3.1 base install (but I guess by now it's a far cry
 >> from that...) with updated kernel 2.4.18 with preepmt patch, and
 >> glibc 2.2.5. I've been having a persnickety atexit problem with
 >> many of the programs I've been trying to compile of late and my
 >> latest information tells me that a likely fix is an upgrade of gcc.
 >> I currently have gcc-2.95.2 as provided by Caldera for their
 >> eW3.1.1 product. So, my question is: Should I update to gcc 3.2,
 >> 3.1.1 or stick with the 2.95.x tree and use 2.95.3?
 >
 >
 > Tim, could you fix your wordwrap, its set to something like 500 right

Actually, it was set to 0, which *used* to be fine with Mozilla <=1.1, 
apparently that's no longer true with Mozilla >=1.2a

 > now. Anyhoo, this really depends on whether you want bleeding edge or
 > stable. Right now there is no compelling reason to go to ta 3.x
 > version of gcc, othe than just because.  2.95.3 or 2.96.x (for those
 > using redhat) is considered the latest stable release.
 >
 >

'cept I have an Athlon and 3.x has optimizations for it. I'll be trying 
3.1.1. From what I've been reading, it should be fine.

 >> I suppose I *could* install multiple compilers and figger this out
 >> on my own, but I was hoping someone with more experience would
 >> offer a clue. I'm leaning toward trying 3.1.1.
 >>
 >> Thanks, Tim
 >>
 >> PS There doesn't appear to be a Step on updating gcc. Is there one
 >> tucked away somewhere that I just can't find? The instructions on
 >> the gnu site are, um, thorough (ly confusing...)
 >
 >
 > If there is one, i'm not aware of it.  I tend to rebuild SRPMs for
 > this sorta thing.
 >