This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Basic Installation help
- To: gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Subject: Basic Installation help
- From: Bill Moseley <moseley at hank dot org>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2001 08:35:14 -0700
I'm slightly confused by the web pages that describe installation.
I'm upgrading a SuSE distributed gcc:
> gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i486-linux/egcs-2.91.66/specs
gcc version egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release)
I downloaded 3.0 full (17921956 gcc-3.0.tar.gz).
1) If I only want to replace my current gcc, can I just install C anc C++
compilers or is the "full" package the way to go? I only expect to build C
and C++ programs at this time.
2) The install page at http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/install/configure.html
says:
"we highly recommend that GCC be built into a separate directory than the
sources which does not reside within the source tree"
Ok, then it gives this:
% mkdir objdir
% cd objdir
% srcdir/configure [target] [options]
Which makes srcdir a sub directory of objdir. I believe it doesn't matter,
but:
Is "srcdir" really something like "<srcdir>" to be replace by where ever
gcc was untarred? Or does it really mean to untar the source as a sub
directory of
the build directory?
In other words, is this what is implied, or does it not matter where the
srcdir is located?
% mkdir objdir
% cd objdir
% lwp-download ftp://ftp.yggdrasil.com/...../gcc-3.0.tar.gz
% tar zxof gcc-3.0.tar.gz
% gcc-3.0/configure
% make bootstrap
% su root
$ make install
3) I get a large number of warnings when building. I find this a bit
disconcerting. I guess I'd expect the compiler source to not generate
warnings... Anyway, is this expected?
4) Finally, I assume my current binutils are fine to use with 3.0. Is
there anything else I need to update, such as libraries? Some of this is a
bit overwhelming for a simple weekend programmer.
Thanks,
Bill Moseley
mailto:moseley@hank.org