older version of gcc

Jacek Poplawski · 2006-01-29 03:49:36

I have gcc-4.0.3 installed.
Is there gcc-3.3.x or gcc-3.4.x in Arch?
How to install it with pacman?

iphitus · 2006-01-29 04:04:02

no, they arent available via pacman. What do you need them for?

You could take a look at the Arch CVS and, pull down their pkgbuilds though.

Jacek Poplawski · 2006-01-29 05:07:14

I curious are my problems with OpenGL stability may be related to gcc4, so I want to recompile Mesa with gcc3.

iphitus · 2006-01-29 05:23:46

Jacek Poplawski wrote:

I curious are my problems with OpenGL stability may be related to gcc4, so I want to recompile Mesa with gcc3.

Chances are they arent caused by GCC4

Have you got an ATI card? thats why
Are you using Xorg7? probably isnt helping.

iphitus

cro · 2006-02-03 18:01:43

I would also welcome a gcc3.3 package. Sometimes you need an older gcc version for development purposes. In my case gcc3.3.

tomk · 2006-02-03 21:34:42

Similar thread here.

bpisciot · 2006-02-03 23:20:43

iphitus wrote:

no, they arent available via pacman. What do you need them for?

I, for one, would like to know how to move to an earlier version of GCC because of the following in the Alsa-driver PKGBUILD:

# NOTE: You need gcc 2.95 to build this package (gcc4 will not work).
# The gcc2 package is found in the AUR (http://aur.archlinux.org).

Is it as simple as installing an earlier version, building a new Alsa-driver package and then reupgrading to the current GCC?

This is important to me because I don't want to screw up my Arch system--which is working beautifully.

Bob Pisciotta

iphitus · 2006-02-04 00:59:37

I hate to say it, but it simply will not work building the alsa-drive package with gcc 2.x.

Firstly, if the package says it needs 2, it must be a very dated package. 2.x is quite old now.

Secondly, as a RULE, a driver, these alsa drivers are drivers, MUST, be compiled with the same GCC version as the kernel. No exceptions. None. Nada. The Arch Kernel is compiled with GCC4, these drivers MUST be compiled with GCC4.

This is a rule, do not waste time trying to work around it.

And lastly, why dont you use the alsa drivers included in the kernel package? They should be more than up to date enough for your usage.

iphitus.

bpisciot · 2006-02-04 05:35:19

Iphitus,

Thanks for the explanation. I'm in uncharted territory when it comes to messing with GCC.

I do have a working alsa installation on my machine. I use it with my laptop's built-in intel-8x0 sound card. I want to rebuild an alsa driver to work with a fancy pcmcia Echo IndigoIO sound card I own. It was my intent to tweak the alsa PKGBUILD to configure and install this card. Now, I'm not so sure I want to try this. At any rate, here's the PKGBUILD that I have in my /var/abs/multimedia/alsa-driver folder:

# $Id: PKGBUILD,v 1.52 2005/11/23 19:41:10 judd Exp $
# Maintainer: judd <jvinet@zeroflux.org>
pkgname=alsa-driver
pkgver=1.0.10
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="An alternative implementation of Linux sound support"
url="http://www.alsa-project.org"
makedepends=('gcc2')
depends=('glibc')
source=(ftp://ftp.alsa-project.org/pub/driver/$pkgname-${pkgver}.tar.bz2)
md5sums=('e9e7c1ca664a14275d67185049f933f9')

# NOTE: You need gcc 2.95 to build this package (gcc4 will not work).
# The gcc2 package is found in the AUR (http://aur.archlinux.org).

build() {
cd $startdir/src/$pkgname-${pkgver}
sed -i 's|/usr/bin/awk|/bin/awk|g' utils/convert_isapnp_ids
export CC=/opt/gcc2/bin/gcc
./configure --prefix=/usr
# make GCC 3.4 play nice
#sed -i 's|-pipe|-pipe -fno-unit-at-a-time|g' Makefile.conf
make || return 1
make DESTDIR=$startdir/pkg install
rm -rf $startdir/pkg/lib/modules/2.4*/modules.*

Can I use this PKGBUILD as is. Or should I just drop it?

Thanks,

Bob Pisciotta

JGC · 2006-02-04 09:10:31

The point with gcc2 to build alsa is because the alsa modules are meant to be used with kernel24, which doesn't compile with gcc4.

I don't know what the state of the latest 2.4 kernels with gcc4 is nowadays, but I'm thinking about getting gcc3.3 parallel installable in /usr like debian does with all those gcc versions.

iphitus · 2006-02-04 12:31:31

I thought Arch dropped support for 2.4 when we dropped devfs?

iphitus

Jacek Poplawski · 2006-02-04 12:36:42

Back to topic... so there is no (easy) way to have multiple versions of gcc in Arch? Do I need to prepare all packages myself?

iphitus · 2006-02-04 13:20:48

Back to the topic, are you using kernel2.4? If not, then this package isnt relevant to you as it is for kernel 2.4.

Just grab the source from the alsa site and build it yourself if you need it so badly.

iphitus

Jacek Poplawski · 2006-02-04 13:39:36

Back to topic... I use 2.6, but I need different compilers to test my software for example.

iphitus · 2006-02-04 14:07:17

i wouldnt bother testing with 2.x now though. Even the kernel has dropped support for it. As for 3.x theres plenty of threads here on how to set that up. Search.

iphitus

dninja · 2006-05-21 12:18:42

So is the conclusion to all this that we can't have a gcc 3.x and a 4.x on a system at the same time?

I'm trying to get some source built that I know works fine in 3.x but fails in 4.x, on my gentoo box I have both and just switch a symlink of gcc to point at the one I need ta the time.

I'm trying the older abs PKGBUILD file to make a package and I'll see what happens once I've got it working.

brain0 · 2006-05-21 15:13:29

Look at the AUR, there are packages for both gcc2 and gcc3. The gcc2 one could be improved, but gcc3 is even in community.

iphitus · 2006-05-22 04:13:28

Fix the package not the distro imho

brain0 · 2006-05-22 13:54:22

iphitus wrote:

Fix the package not the distro imho

In case that is possible, yes. Look at the two popular examples kernel24 and qemu.
I am not sure what the kernel24 problem is, but fixing it is a huge task.
All existing fixes for qemu are hackish at best. While structural changes for making qemu compatible to gcc4 are in the works (google for qop), the best solution for the moment is using gcc3.

For most other pkgs I agree that fixing them is easy with little C/C++ knowledge. If you don't have that knowledge, you can google for a patch or find someone who helps you (for example in the "Making packages" forum).

dninja · 2006-05-22 16:00:47

I'm new to Arch so hadn't looked at the AUR wiki stuff, once I started looking I found someone had fixed the package I've been trying to get working so I'm happy, no need for gcc 3.x anymore.

iphitus · 2006-05-23 00:01:06

brain0 wrote:

iphitus wrote:
Fix the package not the distro imho
In case that is possible, yes. Look at the two popular examples kernel24 and qemu.

use kernel26 arch is dropping support for kernel24 in 0.8 anyway.

I am not sure what the kernel24 problem is, but fixing it is a huge task.
All existing fixes for qemu are hackish at best. While structural changes for making qemu compatible to gcc4 are in the works (google for qop), the best solution for the moment is using gcc3.
For most other pkgs I agree that fixing them is easy with little C/C++ knowledge. If you don't have that knowledge, you can google for a patch or find someone who helps you (for example in the "Making packages" forum).

i thought qemu CVS worked with GCC4...?

brain0 · 2006-05-23 00:19:55

iphitus wrote:

i thought qemu CVS worked with GCC4...?

Last time I tried it didn't. And I am pretty sure I tried it with 0.8.1 which didn't work either.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-01-29 03:49:36

older version of gcc

#2 2006-01-29 04:04:02

Re: older version of gcc

#3 2006-01-29 05:07:14

Re: older version of gcc

#4 2006-01-29 05:23:46

Re: older version of gcc

#5 2006-02-03 18:01:43

Re: older version of gcc

#6 2006-02-03 21:34:42

Re: older version of gcc

#7 2006-02-03 23:20:43

Re: older version of gcc

#8 2006-02-04 00:59:37

Re: older version of gcc

#9 2006-02-04 05:35:19

Re: older version of gcc

#10 2006-02-04 09:10:31

Re: older version of gcc

#11 2006-02-04 12:31:31

Re: older version of gcc

#12 2006-02-04 12:36:42

Re: older version of gcc

#13 2006-02-04 13:20:48

Re: older version of gcc

#14 2006-02-04 13:39:36

Re: older version of gcc

#15 2006-02-04 14:07:17

Re: older version of gcc

#16 2006-05-21 12:18:42

Re: older version of gcc

#17 2006-05-21 15:13:29

Re: older version of gcc

#18 2006-05-22 04:13:28

Re: older version of gcc

#19 2006-05-22 13:54:22

Re: older version of gcc

#20 2006-05-22 16:00:47

Re: older version of gcc

#21 2006-05-23 00:01:06

Re: older version of gcc

#22 2006-05-23 00:19:55

Re: older version of gcc

Board footer