gcc-3.0.2 on fairly old Linux -- libg++ problem

[John Smith <john at arrows dot demon dot co dot uk>]

Hello,
Is libg++ still wanted in a gcc-3.0.2 world?

On an old (much patched Slackware, 1996ish) Linux I have persuaded
gcc-3.0.2 to compile and install.
When I compile my bit of C++ the linker complains thus:

/part2/gcc/install-3/lib/gcc-lib/i586-pc-linux-gnulibc1/3.0.2/../../../\
../i586-pc-linux-gnulibc1/bin/ld:
warning: libstdc++.so.27, needed by /usr/lib/libg++.so, may conflict with
libstdc++.so.3

Sometimes when I run my code - no problem:

   arrow2 [1447] bicyls -c3 -pte -r 16 -R 27 | head -3                        
   0 0.597995 1.23429
   0.5 0.599528 1.27937
   1 0.600948 1.32183
   
but on another occasion

   gnuplot> plot "< bicyls -c3 -pte -r 16 -R 27" us 1:2
   bicyls: can't load library 'libstdc++.so.3'

ldd bicyls reveals
   arrow2 [1449] ldd bicyls
           libg++.so.27 => /usr/lib/libg++.so.27.1.4
           libstdc++.so.3 => /part2/gcc/install-3/lib/libstdc++.so.3
           libm.so.5 => /lib/libm.so.5.0.6
           libgcc_s.so.1 => /part2/gcc/install-3/lib/libgcc_s.so.1
           libc.so.5 => /lib/libc.so.5.4.46
           libstdc++.so.27 => /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.27.1.4

which worries me because we seem to have acquired two libstdc++.so things.
(Some will notice that the libc is a bit old)

Can anyone explain what is going on. Why is libg++ needed - I thought 
new gcc provided a complete C++ standard libary with itself. 

Do I need to give up and get a new self consistant linux?

John
John.Smith@arrows.demon.co.uk