acidblood writes "GCC3.1.1 has been released. Many improvements in performance, code optimization, standards compliance, and a few bug fixes in the C++ ABI (full changelog here). Download from the main GNU FTP or use the nearest mirror."
If you plan on building a distribution (hello Redhat and Mandrake), it's probably wise to wait for gcc 3.2, since binary compatibility will change. Binaries from gcc 3.2 are binary incompatible with anything older.
-- DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
Re:Wait for 3.2
by
mbyte
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Yes.. esp. since 3.2 is only a bugfix release, that should only fix some C++ ABI bugs...
(there's quite some discussion about this now in the gentoo forums)
Red Hat: 3.2 is in Rawhide
by
crow
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Well, 3.2 hasn't been released yet, but that hasn't stopped Red Hat from including it in their Rawhide release.
gcc-3.2-0.1.i386.rpm
I assume it's a pre-release, and they intend to move to a full release before Rawhide becomes 8.0. That should be a relatively safe bet for them, considering not only their unique position in regards to gcc, but also that the GCC web page cites an expected release date for 3.2 as being 2002-07-2x.
Re:Why does the ABI keep changing?
by
randombit
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
But now there's going to be a release incompatible with 3.0/3.1? Come *on*, guys!
And 3.2 is compatible with the V3 ABI. Sure, they could just keep the current ABI, and remain incompatible with compilers from Intel and other commercial vendors forever. That doesn't seem like a particularly great path to me, though.
The reason 3.2 is coming out a few days after 3.1.1 is so RedHat, Mandrake, FreeBSD, SuSE, etc can have time to QA it for their next releases. I don't know of any distributions using 3.0 or 3.1 anyway. Debian and *BSD are still on 2.95.x, Redhat/Mandrake are 3.0-beta. Not sure about SuSE though. So, basically, it's not as if the 3.{0,1}/3.2 ABI changes actually affect anyone, because while 3.2 is incompatible with previous 3.0 releases, 3.2 and 3.0/3.1 are "equally incompatible" with whatever the systems are using now.
Slashdot Mirror
If you plan on building a distribution (hello Redhat and Mandrake), it's probably wise to wait for gcc 3.2, since binary compatibility will change. Binaries from gcc 3.2 are binary incompatible with anything older.
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
Well, 3.2 hasn't been released yet, but that hasn't stopped Red Hat from including it in their Rawhide release.
gcc-3.2-0.1.i386.rpm
I assume it's a pre-release, and they intend to move to a full release before Rawhide becomes 8.0. That should be a relatively safe bet for them, considering not only their unique position in regards to gcc, but also that the GCC web page cites an expected release date for 3.2 as being 2002-07-2x.
But now there's going to be a release incompatible with 3.0/3.1? Come *on*, guys!
And 3.2 is compatible with the V3 ABI. Sure, they could just keep the current ABI, and remain incompatible with compilers from Intel and other commercial vendors forever. That doesn't seem like a particularly great path to me, though.
The reason 3.2 is coming out a few days after 3.1.1 is so RedHat, Mandrake, FreeBSD, SuSE, etc can have time to QA it for their next releases. I don't know of any distributions using 3.0 or 3.1 anyway. Debian and *BSD are still on 2.95.x, Redhat/Mandrake are 3.0-beta. Not sure about SuSE though. So, basically, it's not as if the 3.{0,1}/3.2 ABI changes actually affect anyone, because while 3.2 is incompatible with previous 3.0 releases, 3.2 and 3.0/3.1 are "equally incompatible" with whatever the systems are using now.