SUMMARY: Compiling gcc on OSF 3.0 - Hints?

From: Liz Stewart <liz_at_ece.neu.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 1995 11:17:59 -0400 (EDT)

My original post asked for hints for compiling gcc 2.6.3 on the DEC
OSF/1 3.0 platform, and stated I was having trouble with the
string functions, and perhaps I had accessed a buggy library.

Thanks to all who responded:
Jason Yanowitz (yanowitz_at_cs.umass.edu)
Steven J Kassarjian (Steven.Kassarjian_at_Colorado.edu)
Dan Stromberg (strombrg_at_uci.edu)
Steve Osselton (steve_at_prismtech.co.uk)
Ernie Rael (ernie_at_MasPar.COM)
Ken Teh (teh_at_chinook.phy.anl.gov)
Dave (golden_at_falcon.invincible.com)

In summary, it was mentioned that gcc doesn't run well on the
Alphas, and that cc runs better on this platform. Getting
the newest version of gcc (2.7.0) could solve the problems
I have been having, as well as making sure my version of
libg++ is current (for gcc 2.6.3, this is 2.6.2) for the
version of gcc I want to compile. Also, people have reported
success compiling under Digital Unix 3.2.

Someone mentioned using the -std1 flag when compiling. I
tried this...cc still gives the warnings with regards to the
string functions when I use this flag.

Someone also mentioned that it might be my programs, and not
the compiler. I don't think this is the case, but I am
checking into it just to be sure.

I have since compiled gcc 2.7.0 and am testing it now.
Hopefully I am all set!

                                        -- Liz --


Comments below:

---
Jason Yanowitz (yanowitz_at_cs.umass.edu) said:
> get gcc 2.7.0..
>
> however, and I love gcc and FSF and GNU stuff in general (and I'm a
> huge Linux fan), OSF's cc is much, much better than gcc :(
>
> When optimizing, cc almost always generates better code (never worse,
> in the tests i've done and seen).  look at the -migrate option, by the
> way.
---
Steven J Kassarjian (Steven.Kassarjian_at_Colorado.edu) said:
>gcc 2.7.0 will compile properly under Digital Unix 3.2 using cc,
>giving one spurious warning message (repeated many time).
---
Dan Stromberg (strombrg_at_uci.edu) said:
>'last I heard, gcc still didn't function very well on alpha's.
---
Steve Osselton (steve_at_prismtech.co.uk) said:
>        We have been using this setup for quite some time now on a sizable 
>development project and have had no problems. What version of libg++ are you
Pusing ?, it should be 2.6.2 for version 2.6.3 of the compiler.
---
Ernie Rael (ernie_at_MasPar.COM) said:
>I've had best luck compiling freeware by making sure the -std1 flag is
>turned on when compiling, that turns on STDC and will turn on prototypes
>for most gnu stuff.  Also making sure that stdlib is included can help.
>
>These things occasionally cause problems since gnu stuff isn't always full
>ansi, but if i'm having problems with the program, i'll fix the source
>and leave std1 and stdlib in place.
---
Ken Teh (teh_at_chinook.phy.anl.gov) said:
>Perhaps the problems are not the same, but I've also had problems with
>string functions with gcc on an OSF machine.  However they were mostly
>compiler errors, not run-time errors.  I found that if you include the
>the appropriate header files, as specified on the man page for string
>functions, the compiler messages go away.
---
Dave (golden_at_falcon.invincible.com) said:
>I have gotten 2.7.0  and libg++ 2.7.0 to compile under OSF/1 3.2.

Received on Thu Aug 24 1995 - 17:41:19 NZST