I noticed that while FC2 contains a copy of compat-libstdc++ (7.4.2-2.96.126) that the current development RPMS are missing this. Is this change slated for FC3 and RHEL 4? I still have legacy binaries here that require compat-libstdc++ making this change most unwanted. Jack
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 07:10:01PM -0400, Jack Howarth wrote:
I noticed that while FC2 contains a copy of compat-libstdc++(7.4.2-2.96.126) that the current development RPMS are missing this. Is this change slated for FC3 and RHEL 4? I still have legacy binaries here that require compat-libstdc++ making this change most unwanted.
FC3 has compat-libstdc++-8-3.3.4.1, which contains the 2.96-RH libstdc++.so as well as GCC 3.3 libstdc++.so. You cannot compile new programs with 2.96-RH though, which is done on purpose. FC3 is going to contain compat-gcc (GCC 3.3.4, hopefully with a switch for GCC 3.2 binary compatibility), gcc (GCC 3.4.[12]) and gcc35 (preview of GCC trunk, which ought to be binary compatible with 3.4.[12]). Shipping more compilers is just insane.
Jakub
On Mon, 28 Jun 2004 03:07:05 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
FC3 has compat-libstdc++-8-3.3.4.1, which contains the 2.96-RH libstdc++.so as well as GCC 3.3 libstdc++.so. You cannot compile new programs with 2.96-RH though, which is done on purpose. FC3 is going to contain compat-gcc (GCC 3.3.4, hopefully with a switch for GCC 3.2 binary compatibility), gcc (GCC 3.4.[12]) and gcc35 (preview of GCC trunk, which ought to be binary compatible with 3.4.[12]). Shipping more compilers is just insane.
Am I right in thinking the bincompat breaks between 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 are all related to very obscure parts of the c++ standard and probably won't affect people on a day to day basis? Last time I checked this was the case, but that was a while ago ...
thanks -mike
-
Jack Howarth -
Jakub Jelinek -
Mike Hearn