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

[Kurt Wall]

Quoth Net Llama!:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Bill Campbell wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:46:42PM -0400, Net Llama! wrote:
> > >I'm attempting to parse how to safely build & install gcc-3.3 so that it
> > >will peacefull coincide with gcc-2.96.  What i'm not understanding is how
> > >to do it.  If i do a normal build/install of gcc-3.3, isn't it going to
> > >overwrite the pre-existing version unless i install it somewhere
> > >non-traditional?  And if i install it somewhere non-traditional, how do i
> > >allow make to use it for future builds?
> >
> > 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.

No need, and it's not that simple. You can pass the 
--program-{prefix,suffix}=FOO or the --program-transform-name=P
options to configure:

    --program-prefix=FOO prepends FOO to installed program names
    --program-suffix=FOO appends FOO to installed program names
    --program-transform-name=P transform installed names by sed 
      pattern P

> 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?

I'd keep it around until you're sure the new one works.

<plug mode="shameless">
If all else fails, see http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=187
when it comes out. ;-)
</plug>

Kurt
-- 
A new dramatist of the absurd
Has a voice that will shortly be heard.
	I learn from my spies
	He's about to devise
An unprintable three-letter word.