Re: [ROOT] compatibilities w. libstdc++

From: Rene Brun (Rene.Brun@cern.ch)
Date: Tue Sep 24 2002 - 19:27:58 MEST


Hi Brett,

The current version of ROOT 3.03/09 compiles and executes without
problems on RH7.2, RH7.3 with gcc2.95.3, gcc2.96, gcc3.0, gcc3.1, gcc3.2.
We provide binary versions for RH7.2 with gcc2.95.3, gcc2.96 and gcc3.2
see: http://root.cern.ch/root/Version303.html

When installing from source, no modifications of the Makefile
are required.

Rene Brun


On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Brett Viren wrote:

> Pia Thorngren writes:
>  > 
>  > Hi,
>  > my group is trying to compile on RH Linux 7.2 using a degradation of
>  > the gcc compiler to version 2.95.3. The programs we (try to) use are
>  > root, clhep7.5.1.0, pluto eventgenerator and geant4.4.1 . The choice of 
>  > compiler version is governed by geant and other software already developed
>  > by another party.
>  > 
>  > We run into problems due to a lot of dependencies of other applications
>  > adn library paths gone astray. Does anyone have experience with this? Is
>  > it possible not only to have two or several versions of compiler
>  > installed, but also libraryversions of e.g. libstdc++? What happens during
>  > runtime? 
> 
> This is a major issue with us.  Between compiler bugs, code bugs, and
> CINT not handling all the different C++ "standards", we bounce around
> between GCC versions.
> 
> The number one thing is to make sure that the same g++ executable is
> used for compiling *every* C++ library/executable and that the correct
> corresponding version of gcc (or g++) is used to do the linking.  The
> compiler executables "know" the correct system includes and libraries
> (assuming they are installed correctly).  
> 
> One easy way to slip up is to have the two (or more) versions of GCC
> installed with the default names, but in different locations.  This
> leads to problems if users with different PATH ordering compile
> different parts of the code base.
> 
> I have found that installing the different compilers with version
> specific names (eg, g++-3.0, g++-3.2 as Debian does) and then modifying
> the ROOT build system as well as our own to explicitly force the
> correct executable name has proven safest.
> 
> -Brett.
> 



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 04 2003 - 23:51:11 MET