Bug 8491 – Request for better gcc-2.95 ebuild

• Status: RESOLVED FIXED
• Product: Gentoo Linux

[Description Mauricio Lima Pilla 2002-09-27 20:04:34 UTC]

Hi

It would be interesting to have a gcc-2.95 ebuild that would install after
gcc-3.2 and would not overwrite some files (like /usr/bin/gcc) with its version
but keep it with a prefix (/usr/bin/gcc-2.95)

Actually, gcc-3.2 does that if installed after gcc-2.95, but gcc-2.95 does not. 

Cheers, BB

[Comment 1 Arun Thomas (RETIRED) 2002-10-18 16:08:42 UTC]

I have reworked the gcc-2.95 ebuild to coexist with gcc 3.2. It is largely
derived from the gcc-3.2 ebuild. There was one problem I ran into. gcc-2.95
cannot build with the gcc 3.2 -march and -mcpu options. I sedded these out with
the gcc-2.95 equivalents by grabbing the first part of the CHOST variable.
Theoretically, this should work for all the platforms. I'm not sure though. If
it doesn't, I can include a lookup table that maps gcc-3.2 to gcc-2.95.3 options

Also, the --program-suffix option to the autoconf script does not seem to work.
I found a patch to fix this. I figured it wasn't worth applying it though. I
just appended the -2.95 suffix to the executables at the end of src_install.
There were a few other minor things I did that I'd be glad to discuss.

I tested this on two p3 boxes, one with gentoo 1.2 and the other with gentoo
1.4. I welcome feedback, complaints, etc. The ebuild could definitely use more
testing...

[Comment 2 Arun Thomas (RETIRED) 2002-10-18 16:09:37 UTC]

Created attachment 4808 [details]
the ebuild

[Comment 3 David Kiser 2002-11-04 06:43:04 UTC]

This ebuild worked great for me.  I am now able to compile my nonported code 
using gcc-2.95.  I have not encountered any issues with my gcc3.  

[Comment 4 David Kiser 2002-11-04 06:47:00 UTC]

One change I would recommend is sedding out for additional gcc 3.2 CFLAGS 
settings, I had to alter my make.conf to remove -mmmx and -m3dnow.  

[Comment 5 Mike S 2002-11-04 11:06:52 UTC]

The ebuild attachment from Sindian worked well for me.  I was able to compile 
my (gcc-3.2 unfriendly) code without any issues.  My gcc-3.2 compiler still 
functions normally (I have emerged a few updates and they compiled on gcc-3.2 
without incident).

IMHO, this would be a great add-on for the 1.4 release.

[Comment 6 Martin Schlemmer (RETIRED) 2002-11-04 11:25:17 UTC]

Sorry for this delayed response, but we are working on a improved multi-version
scheme for gcc .. thus ill only get to this when that is finalized.

[Comment 7 Arun Thomas (RETIRED) 2002-11-04 21:13:46 UTC]

Well, I guess my ebuild is obsolete then. Azarah, let me know if I can help with
the new multi-gcc scheme.

Arun

[Comment 8 Martin Schlemmer (RETIRED) 2002-11-05 11:19:45 UTC]

I wont say that.  I am sure many users are grateful for this ebuild here.
Will let you know ... although it will need some portage side changes,
so could take some time.

[Comment 9 Martin Schlemmer (RETIRED) 2002-12-08 15:13:23 UTC]

Should be fixed with gcc-2.95.3-r8, if used along with gcc-3.2-r5 or gcc-3.2.1-r5.

[Comment 10 Arun Thomas (RETIRED) 2003-03-25 21:06:34 UTC]

Azarah,

This bug can probably be closed now.

Arun

[Comment 11 Martin Schlemmer (RETIRED) 2003-03-30 14:25:13 UTC]

Fixed by gcc-2.95.3-r8.