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

[Tim Wunder]

On 9/19/2002 12:49 AM, someone claiming to be Collins wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Sep 2002 08:51:43 -0400 Tim Wunder <tim at thewunders.org>
> wrote:
> 
>>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? 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.
>>
> 
> 
> You have no compelling reason to upgrade the compiler unless you just
> like to tinker.  That being said, why 3.1.1 when 3.2 is the more or
> less stable version of the new compiler?
> 

 From what I've read, there are potential problems with 3.2 and KDE/QT. 
But, it doesn't matter, 3.1.1 wouldn't compile for me and I suspect that 
3.2 wouldn't either. I took Doug's advice and compiled/installed 2.95.3 
last night.

My compelling reason to upgrade the compiler is that, according to most 
of the information I found, an upgraded compiler was required for 
compiling with glibc-2.2.5. I upgraded glibc to 2.2.5 because I was 
having compile problems, kept getting atexit errors that seemed to be 
attributed to a problem with glibc.

As of right now, it looks like I'm on the path to finally fixing my 
system. gcc-2.95.3 installed beautifully last night, and 'make World' of 
xfree86-4.2.1 completed without any atexit errors. Today, my project is 
to do a 'make install' in X and see if I can get that to work. Then, to 
find out if *that* finally fixes the problem I'm having with 
OpenOffice.org-1.0.1 crashing X.

But, as I said, that's only the way it looks *right now*...

Regards,
Tim