To have only gcc-3.2 on the spuds is not a good idea until we also have
it on all blast machines including dblast. It was mentioned that gcc-3.2
was more compliant but I was not aware of any decision. It is not a personal
issue but as you know Root is definitely not compliant and we rely heavily
on it. I don't see the rush, given also the points below:
_ Ernie bisson must be made aware so that once we are happy with gcc-3.2
we can schedule an installation on all other machine. Note the word
schedule ! He very much prefers that way, but so do we!! think of all
the various root versions here and there not so long ago.
- Not everybody everywhere uses gcc-3.2. At least we should provide a way
to have a way to have two different compilations (src trees) and not
break the experiment.
- gcc-3.2 won't speed up the code or fix bugs in the existing code. We are
supposed to use the existing code for an aymmetry measurament next week...
- It will be wonderful to have gcc-3.2 for the v3 release, which already
is not "backward" compatible.
- I have no problems if you install gcc-3.2 as an alt compiler on the
spuds. I have problems if we can't compile with gcc-2.96 anymore on the
spuds.
-- ________________________________________________________________________________ Tancredi Botto, phone: +1-617-253-9204 mobile: +1-978-490-4124 research scientist MIT/Bates, 21 Manning Av Middleton MA, 01949 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^On Thu, 8 May 2003, Frederick T. Lee wrote:
> Hi, > > As requested, we are planning to upgrade gcc 2.96 to gcc-3.2 on spuds. > As some of you might already know, gcc-3.2 is not backward compatible. > gcc-3.2 follows more strictly on gcc standards and it is less forgiving. > Please let me know if you really need gcc 2.96 compiler on spuds. > If so, I will try to have both compilers available and make gcc-3.2 as > a default compiler. > > -T >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Mon Feb 24 2014 - 14:07:29 EST