gcc-2.9x & gcc-3.3x peacfully coinciding?

[Bill Campbell]

On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 02:18:36PM -0400, Net Llama! wrote:
>On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Bill Campbell wrote:
...
>> There's a build option in gcc to have it build in its own directory so
>> that's out of the way when you don't want to use it.
>>
>> We've been using the openpkg.org packaging system which builds it as gcc2
>> so it's as easy as saying CC=gcc2.
>
>Couldn't i just rename the gcc binary to be gcc2?  Even if i did that, i'd
>still run into problems when rebuilding SRPMs (which i do quite a lot).
>I'd have to edit the SPEC file all the time to set CC=gcc2.

I don't think that renaming the binary would be safe as gcc has several
executables, not to mention libraries and headers.  The executables on our
openpkg gcc2 package are:
	c++2, c++filt2, cpp2, g++2, gcc2, gcov2, protoize2, and unprotoize2

>Is there any reason to keep the old version of gcc around, other than for
>the random stuff that still won't buld right on gcc-3.x?

There's more than a bit of random stuff that won't build right.  gcc3.3 has
gotten a lot pickier about what it will accept.  One of the major gotchas
on older code is that it won't accept any varargs.h which requires
significant fiddling of the source.

Bill
--
INTERNET:   bill at Celestial.COM  Bill Campbell; Celestial Software LLC
UUCP:               camco!bill  PO Box 820; 6641 E. Mercer Way
FAX:            (206) 232-9186  Mercer Island, WA 98040-0820; (206) 236-1676
URL: http://www.celestial.com/

``Everybody is ignorant, only on different subjects.''
    Will Rogers