<br /> Debian switches to GCC 3.2 as default compiler – Debian Planet

Welcome to Debian Planet

News for Debian. Stuff that *really* matters


DP is sponsored by Xinit Systems.

Buy your Debian merchandise at DebianShop.com.

These are important Debian sites one should not be without!

  • Official Debian site
  • Package search
  • Mailing list archives
  • Bug reports
  • Debian on CD
  • Debian Weekly News — excellent news source!
  • Unofficial APT sources

  • Developers’ Corner
  • Community
    Need help? You’re not alone on this planet.

  • Planet Debian
  • debianHELP
    (User support site)

  • Debian Administration
    (SysAdmin resources)

  • Debian International
  • DebianForum.de

  • DebianForum.dk

  • EsDebian

  • DebianWorld

  • Debian-Fr

  • MaximumDebian

  • DebianItalia
  • DebianUsers

  • Debian-BR

  • DebianHOWTO

  • Russian Debian (Русский)
  • Debian-JP
  • Debian Suisse
  • Contribute
    Got that latest or greatest scoop? Perhaps you have some important news for the Debian community? Submit a news item!

    Or perhaps you’ve written a rather ground breaking insight into some aspect of Debian and you feel compelled to share it with others? Knock up a longer editorial article and send it to the editors.

    General feedback should be sent to staff@debianplanet.org

    The place to get help on a Debian problem (after reading docs) or to just chat and chill is #debian on irc.oftc.net.

    Many of the Debian Planet staff live there so pop by and say hello.

    Debian Planet also has its own channel on the same network called #debianplanet.


    Debian switches to GCC 3.2 as default compiler
    Submitted by ametzler on Wednesday, January 08, 2003 – 09:09
    DebianRyan Murray posted some great news to debian-devel-announce yesterday. After long preparations and tests (and waiting for gcc to compile and work properly on m68k – Robot101) Debian has finally changed the default compiler (available as “gcc” and “g++”) to gcc 3.2 on all architectures in sid.

    Because gcc 3.2 changes the C++ ABI (you cannot link an application against two different C++ libraries, one compiled with gcc 2.95, the other compiled with gcc 3.2) the transition required careful preparations, and the change requires that the package maintainers follow the transition plan.

    Thanks to the gcc maintainers and all the other people who made this possible.

    Category: News

    Control panel

    Comment viewing options:

    Select your prefered way to display the comments and click ‘Update settings’ to activate your changes.

    Subject: Some questions……
    Author: grolschie
    Date: Saturday, 2003/01/18 – 00:11
    I have gcc 2.95 and g++ 3.2 installed, will the different versions cause me problems? Or should both be the same version?

    If I compile my kernel with gcc 3.2, will my modules that were compiled with gcc 2.95 cause me hassles? I mean, I have proprietary modem drivers with are pre-compiled.

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: The only problems…
    Author: robot101
    Date: Saturday, 2003/01/18 – 13:25
    The only problems will come about if you try and use C++ code compiled by 2.95 with C++ code compiled by 3.2. What you describe is C code, and will not encounter problems. I’m not sure what happens if you try to link 2.95’s C++ code to 3.2’s C code, or vice versa. However, if you use Debian’s gcc and g++ stub packages, both will symlink to 2.95 on woody and sarge, and 3.2 on sid, so no you should hit no problems if you keep up to date.

    Robster is a monkey
    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: Package version 3.2.2?
    Author: caf
    Date: Friday, 2003/01/10 – 15:03
    Why is the packaged version of gcc in sid “3.2.2”, when no such release is mentioned on http://gcc.gnu.org/ or available on any of the gcc mirrors? Where did this version come from? Is it a CVS snapshot of the 3.2 branch, and if so, when was it made? I’m concerned because I know at least one package that’s seriously affected by an optimiser bug that was only fixed very recently in the 3.2 branch.

    – caf.

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: It’s a snapshot
    Author: JoeBuck
    Date: Monday, 2003/01/20 – 20:05
    The last time I checked, sid’s gcc is based on a snapshot of the gcc CVS branch named “3_2_branch” taken on Jan 9, 2003.

    As for numbering, this is the way the GCC project does things for snapshots. Also, I expect that the GCC project will release a 3.2.2 in the near future, which will be quite close to what Debian sid is shipping. It will fix about 40 PRs as compared to gcc 3.2.1 (Debian sid should already have most of those fixes, modulo any breakage caused by Debian-specific patches).

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: gcc package versions
    Author: hokanomono
    Date: Friday, 2003/01/10 – 16:39
    The gcc package is just a dependency package. It depends on the debian default compiler package, which currently is the gcc-3.2 package. The version of the gcc-3.2 package is 1:3.2.2-0pre3. The file /usr/share/doc/gcc-3.2/changelog.Debian.gz informs us, that the source (1:3.2.2ds3-0pre3) is a snapshot of the 3.2 branch at 20021231.

    Maybe the verion of the gcc-3.2 package should rather be something like 1:3.2.1+cvs20021231. I don’t know exactly what the policy says about it.

    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: annoyance
    Author: JoeBuck
    Date: Thursday, 2003/01/09 – 22:34
    I’m a bit annoyed that the Debian folks are still saying
    “gcc 3.2”, for a binary that is basically gcc 3.2.1 (plus
    even some more patches from the GCC project’s 3_2_branch).
    Considering the large numbers of bugs fixed between 3.2 and
    3.2.1, using the term “3.2” may cause people to think that
    Debian has a buggier-than-average compiler.
    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: Re: annoyance
    Author: Kamion
    Date: Sunday, 2003/01/12 – 02:10
    Changing package names unnecessarily is a pain, so the package is still called gcc-3.2. Anyone who really wants to see what’s going on will look at the version number in the package.

    I think most people are unaware that GCC has a silly versioning scheme where 3.2 can’t be used as a shorthand for 3.2.*; also, Debian people often refer to package names, i.e. gcc-3.2 in this case, which is unambiguous for us. In the case of this transition, the ABI is the relevant change, which I understand is materially unchanged from 3.2 to 3.2.1.

    Not to mention that you’re worrying about the contrast between gcc 3.2 and 3.2.1 when we’re only just managing to get out of the doldrums of 2.95 (or 2.96 for ia64, or 3.0 for hppa). 🙂 Everything’s relative …

    Colin Watson

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: I might agree with you if
    Author: xm
    Date: Friday, 2003/01/10 – 03:17
    I might agree with you if they were saying “3.2.0”, but they’re not. I personally interpret “3.2” as “3.2.x”.

    And besides, if anyone cares enough about “.0” vs “.1”, I’m sure they will check it out for themselves.

    fitter, healthier, more productive
    like a pig, in a cage, on antibiotics

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: Excuse me?
    Author: JoeBuck
    Date: Friday, 2003/01/10 – 04:05
    But the GCC project did not release a compiler numbered 3.2.0.
    It released a compiler numbered 3.2.
    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: well, get them to stop!
    Author: xtifr
    Date: Saturday, 2003/01/11 – 08:13
    Sheesh, the gcc guys adopt some insane versioning scheme, then flame the rest of the world for being confused? Who’s really to blame here? Next time, beat on them until they release a proper 3.3.0, rather than a confusing and inconsistent 3.3!
    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: ….as Ace Ventura would say…
    Author: grolschie
    Date: Friday, 2003/01/10 – 08:57
    ‘Pedantic much? A much too much.’ 😉
    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: Why I’m pedantic about this
    Author: JoeBuck
    Date: Friday, 2003/01/10 – 18:25
    I’m the guy who does the release notes for gcc.

    Check out this page and you’ll see why the Debian project might not want the public to think that they provide gcc 3.2, rather than gcc 3.2.1. You’ll see that gcc 3.2.1 has more than 90 bug fixes as compared to gcc 3.2.

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: ok.
    Author: grolschie
    Date: Friday, 2003/01/10 – 21:40
    Ok gotcha. I see your point. However, don’t some dists say they include KDE3 instead of 3.0.5, etc? Others… kernel 2.4 instead of 2.4.18, etc. I am guessing in the fine print people will see the exact revision, and that GCC 3.2 refers to the whole family of revisions of 3.2.x?
    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: woody -> sid
    Author: elb
    Date: Thursday, 2003/01/09 – 12:50
    i’ve just wanted to upgrade from woody to sid, does this mean i should wait until transtition is complete? i don’t want my system to hang all the time…
    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: woody upgrade
    Author: dale
    Date: Saturday, 2003/01/11 – 01:44
    I myself use sarge/testing I would recommend upgrading to that instead
    of sid/unstable.

    — Dale;

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: anyway.. go for the adventure
    Author: hokanomono
    Date: Friday, 2003/01/10 – 14:36
    I am not a debian developer, but…

    If you have some experience with your favorite apt frontend (I use aptitude), i don’t see any reason why upgrading to sid should be more troublesome now rather than usually, except for a possible waste of ‘bandwidth’ when upgrading to packages that will be outdated soon, anyway.

    Aptitude should care for everything, and, dpkg is not rpm! If aptitude cannot resolve conflicts in a way which satisfies you, just don’t press g. (also remember Crtl-_ is undo and you have a log in /var/log/aptitude)

    Generally, don’t upgrade too many packages at once.

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: i’ll have to do this for the first time
    Author: elb
    Date: Friday, 2003/01/10 – 19:00
    actually, i haven’t done any upgrade yet – this is gonna be my first time 🙂 and as I said, i use woody now. the question is does it seem to be safer now or i’d better wait (how long?) until the trastition is complete? i mean, can it break some dependencies because of the fact that one package is compiled with 3.2.1 and another one was compiled with 2.95???
    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: break dependencies
    Author: hokanomono
    Date: Friday, 2003/01/10 – 23:05
    Well, it will “break” dependencies, meaning, that you will not be able to install/upgrade certain packages yet because they conflict with packages that you need. (i.e. “not be able to”, not “should care not to do”. Let dpkg care for it 😉

    Just read what apt/aptitude/… suggests and decide carefully. (Rather hold back some packages instead of removing packages that you might need.) Upgrade important packages first (e.g. dpkg, aptitude)

    The newly compiled C++ libraries will have different package names (c102 suffix), so you can still choose between the g++-3.2.x or earlier versions. I expect there will be a period of some days, when upgrading becomes difficult, because of some packages being already recompiled, while some are still waiting to be. Again, nothing you really have to worry about.

    The worst thing that i can imagine to happen is, that you end up with some packages still being from woody for a week or two, while others are sid.

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: take a little bit time
    Author: bausi
    Date: Thursday, 2003/01/09 – 13:10
    although I don’t believe that there will be greater problems, perhaps waiting some days won’t hurt. Especially with 3.2 we will have KDE 3.1 soon in Debian.
    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: Stupid question:
    Author: grolschie
    Date: Thursday, 2003/01/09 – 02:35
    Excuse my ignorance, but does this mean that software / proprietary modules pre-compiled with gcc2.9x will no longer work on a gcc 3.2 updated system?
    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: Only in some cases
    Author: nav
    Date: Thursday, 2003/01/09 – 07:15
    Only if they link against a C++ library.

    But, unless I’m confused at the moment, if they link against the standard C++ runtime but no other C++ libraries, they should still work since the old C++ runtime can coexist with the new one.

    The C ABI doesn’t really change, since the language doesn’t support any features that’d require it to do so. So, C programs and libraries will link correctly.

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: They still work
    Author: JoeBuck
    Date: Thursday, 2003/01/09 – 22:31
    Running older code only requires that compatibility libraries be installed; Debian and other distros have made these older shared libraries available for a long time. The same GNU/Linux system can
    easily simultaneously run C++ code built with egcs, gcc-2.95.x, and
    gcc-3.2.x, provided that the correct libraries are installed.
    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: Not in this case.
    Author: Integral
    Date: Saturday, 2003/01/11 – 03:09
    The reason the compatibility libraries worked for most previous transitions is that sonames changed. Unfortunately, compiling a shared library with g++-3.2 changes the ABI but not the soname, so the libraries can’t simply live together in /usr/lib. It was determined that having the linker do magic to segregate old-ABI libraries into a separate directory was impractical, and so the newly compiled libraries actually conflict with the old one.

    See many threads on debian-devel for more information.


    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: GPL
    Author: hokanomono
    Date: Saturday, 2003/01/11 – 09:05
    It shouldn’t be a problem for GPL libraries since proprietary software may not link against it. GPL improves portability. Another aspect of ‘free’ as in ‘freedom’.
    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: whoo hoo MIPS32 and ARM ?
    Author: johnjones
    Date: Thursday, 2003/01/09 – 01:12
    so this goes for MIPS and ARM as well I hope


    John Jones

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: Re: whoo hoo MIPS32 and ARM
    Author: Kamion
    Date: Sunday, 2003/01/12 – 02:12
    Yes, and it should be a significant improvement for the toolchains on those architectures, particularly the mipsen I’m told.

    Finally we’re back to one compiler version for all architectures!

    Colin Watson

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: I should hope so
    Author: cbcbcb
    Date: Sunday, 2003/01/12 – 17:14
    > Yes, and it should be a significant improvement for the toolchains on
    > those architectures

    It wouldn’t be difficult. I’ve found Woody’s toolchain is hopeless on ARM for compiling C++ and the Woody gcc-3.0 packages are scarcely any better.

    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: KDE 3 here we come!
    Author: binaryfeed
    Date: Wednesday, 2003/01/08 – 20:33
    I guess this means that KDE 3 will finally become part of the main debian branch!

    Anyone know if this will give faster load times for KDE apps and preclude the need for the kdeinit program? I thought I read somewhere that it would …

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: I believe it will – gcc 3.2 i
    Author: meldroc
    Date: Wednesday, 2003/01/08 – 22:20
    I believe it will – gcc 3.2 incorporates a lot of C++ optimizations, including the objprelink stuff that was used to speed things up.
    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: objprelink is orthogonal
    Author: JoeBuck
    Date: Friday, 2003/01/10 – 04:08
    Pre-linking tricks such as those used by KDE are a function of the
    linker, not the compiler.

    3.2.x is vastly more ISO C++-conformant than earlier releases, so
    it will be necessary to fix some programs.

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: Along these lines…
    Author: Psiren
    Date: Wednesday, 2003/01/08 – 21:18
    Does anyone know if Karolina’s excellent debs will be updated to g++ 3.2, or will we have to just wait til unstable gets its own.
    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: She said No on debian-kde
    Author: lemenuisier
    Date: Thursday, 2003/01/09 – 13:52
    She said No on debian-kde

    “I will stay with the old g++ 2.95 until it becomes too troublesome.”

    To use g++ 3.2 debs, use the debs of Ralf Nolden. Insert this line in your sources.list:
    deb http://ktown.kde.org/~nolden/kde/woody/i386/ ./

    [read the archives of debian-kde before to have an idea of possibles errors :-)]

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: But they have to..
    Author: Johannes
    Date: Thursday, 2003/01/23 – 13:34
    When KDE 3.1 is uploaded to Debian Main, the packages _will_ be built with GCC 3.2. There is no way out!

    Or do they want to stick eternally in a seperate repository?

    This is really a major annoyance since many build-depends are broken as long as Debian Main only holds KDE 2.2.2. E.g. you cannot install gstreamer-plugins because gstreamer-arts ist built against libarts and not against libarts1. I really hope they change this soon!

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: Re: But they have to..
    Author: ErikMeusel
    Date: Sunday, 2003/02/09 – 14:58
    > you cannot install gstreamer-plugins because gstreamer-arts ist built against
    > libarts and not against libarts1.
    Try to compile and install gstreamer-plugins from source-package. I’ve recently provided a patch to support linking against libarts1.


    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: ralph’s debs are currently still 2.95
    Author: kervel@jabber.com
    Date: Friday, 2003/01/10 – 00:27
    i think ralph’s debs are still 2.95 atm
    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: you’re right 🙂
    Author: lemenuisier
    Date: Friday, 2003/01/10 – 20:59
    Sorry for the (big) mistake,

    At http://lists.debian.org/debian-kde/2003/debian-kde-200301/msg00309.html, Ralf said (03-01-09)

    “I’d wait until next week when (hopefully) XFree and Qt are migrated.
    Then recompile your stuff. At least I’ll do that. And maybe until then KDE 3.1 is already in sid :-)”

    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: I am running Karolina 3.1rc6…
    Author: DaGoodBoy
    Date: Thursday, 2003/01/09 – 13:05
    I just ran a update/upgrade and nothing appears broken.
    [ Please login, or register ]


    Subject: Along these lines…
    Author: meralon
    Date: Thursday, 2003/01/09 – 08:17
    Give konstruct a try. It builds KDE 3.1rc6 without problems for me.
    [ Please login, or register ]

    Search articles

    ·News (402)
    ·Features (5)
    ·Site News (16)
    ·HOWTOs (75)
    ·Tips (21)
    ·Opinion (29)
    ·Q & A (34)
    ·Sponsorship (1)
    ·Press Releases (5)

    Log in


    Remember me

    » Register
    » New password

    Debian Security Announcements
    DSA-938 koffice
    DSA-937 tetex-bin
    DSA-936 libextractor
    DSA-935 libapache2-mod-auth-pgsql
    DSA-934 pound
    DSA-933 hylafax
    DSA-932 kdegraphics
    DSA-931 xpdf
    DSA-930 smstools
    DSA-929 petris

    Planet Debian
    Adeodato Simó: A word or two on the GFDL GR
    Martin-Éric Racine: Tales of positive upstream collaboration
    Steve Kemp: Free the mallocs!
    Peter Van Eynde: clisp 2.37 seems unable to append to files
    Todd Troxell: USPTO/ US Homeland Sec and OSS
    Joey Hess: Anna
    Amaya Rodrigo: How cute can it get?
    Lars Wirzenius: Debian: On using phones
    Philipp Kern: Problems with Apple’s HDDs and Linux
    Jesus Climent: New old HP calculator.

    Debian Administration
    Monitoring your bandwidth usage with vnstat
    Ruby on Rails on Debian
    Choice for Virtual Private Servers?
    Monitoring your hardware’s temperature
    Sending mail with Exim from ‘dialup’ IP
    How to recover GRUB Debian Sarge after reinstalling Windows
    Getting a GUI
    Spam filtering with Pyzor and SpamBayes
    Giving your Xen instances a working X setup
    Debian-Administration: Our first full year

    Latest poll: Which release scheme should Debian follow?
    Continue this way (release when ready)
    Give up on releasing
    Split the release up
    Speed the release up
    Crank the workload up (see DebianWiki ReleaseProposals for details on these)

    Total votes: 372
    0 comments · older polls

    home · archives · news feeds · about · polls · search · sections · user account

    Powered by the amazing Drupal

    Debian Planet is not officially related to the Debian Project.
    Debian and the Debian logo are trademarks of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.