Notice: Any messages purporting to come from this site telling you that your password has expired, or that you need to verify your details, confirm your email, resolve issues, making threats, or asking for money, are
spam. We do not email users with any such messages. If you have lost your password you can obtain a new one by using the
password reset link.
Due to spam on this forum, all posts now need moderator approval.
Entire forum
➜ Programming
➜ General
➜ Using a different version of gcc
|
Using a different version of gcc
|
It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.
Refresh page
| Posted by
| Robert Powell
Australia (367 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Wed 01 Jun 2005 12:45 AM (UTC) |
| Message
| Hi all, on my local computer i use gcc 3.4 and have no troubles, on my paid host im compiling with gcc 2.95 and am having troubles with some things, i did notice that the host has gcc 3.3.1 installed as well, tho im at a loss as to how to get it to compile with this version.
I have tryed to add some flags to the CC = gcc section of the make file, but i couldnt make it happen, -V 3.3.1 .
So im at a loss, any ideas or a good fac that i can read to help me in this would be great.
Thanks. |
Just a guy having a bit of fun. Nothing more, nothing less, I do not need I WIN to feel validated. | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Zeno
USA (2,871 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #1 on Wed 01 Jun 2005 12:56 AM (UTC) |
| Message
| | Yeah, some older versions of gcc have issues compiling. Like old version will compile Smaug okay, but not SmaugFUSS. Such as the spunge.org host, has such an old gcc, SmaugFUSS won't compile. My only suggestion is to have the host upgrade. 4.0.x is the newest gcc, they're pretty outdated. |
Zeno McDohl,
Owner of Bleached InuYasha Galaxy
http://www.biyg.org | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Samson
USA (683 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #2 on Wed 01 Jun 2005 02:23 AM (UTC) |
| Message
| Thing is, alot of the issues the later GCC 3.x compilers were designed to force you to fix are not going to work on 2.95 because some of these issues stemmed from actual compiler bugs and not just code bugs. So fixing those will often make 2.9x think the code is buggy even when this isn't true.
I would tend to agree with the assessment that anyone still using 2.9x should probably consider upgrading. If not to 4.0 then at least to 3.4 which has proven to be quite stable. | | Top |
|
| Posted by
| Robert Powell
Australia (367 posts) Bio
|
| Date
| Reply #3 on Wed 01 Jun 2005 06:57 AM (UTC) Amended on Wed 01 Jun 2005 07:01 AM (UTC) by Robert Powell
|
| Message
| The host has 2.95 and 3.3.1 installed i just dont know how to make it compile on the 3.3.1 version of gcc, as it defaults to 2.95.
Its just a pain at the moment to have to upload exe files rather than the few c files i have changed.
|
Just a guy having a bit of fun. Nothing more, nothing less, I do not need I WIN to feel validated. | | Top |
|
The dates and times for posts above are shown in Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC).
To show them in your local time you can join the forum, and then set the 'time correction' field in your profile to the number of hours difference between your location and UTC time.
13,263 views.
It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed.
Refresh page
![[Go to top]](/images/gototop.gif)
top