RE: Doubt about GCC

["Rupert Wood" <me at rupey dot net>]

Shankar Kripa wrote:

> I had downloaded the gcc 3.3.1 source code through CVS.

Might be worth bumping that to 3.3.2 now, since that's officially released,
or just use the gcc-3_3-branch. Despite the "3.3.3 (prerelease)" version
this should remain stable now.

> I configured and installed the gcc 3.3.1 version using ./configure
> and make install.

You should probably look at the install instructions at

    http://gcc.gnu.org/install/

Whilst that *should* work, you're left with GCC 3.3.1 that's been built
using the current system compiler rather that built by itself. This should
be OK if the system compiler is a comparible version (I don't know RH9) but
it's more usual to

    configure (in a separate directory from the source tree)
    make bootstrap
    make install

make bootstrap builds the compiler three times: once, C and Ada only, so it
has a version of itself to build itself with and then twice more, each time
using the last compiler built, to create the final compiler then sanity
check that the output is consistent. Obviously this is going to take a lot
longer.

> Finally i found out that the binary "gcc" is missing..The other
> binaries like g++,gnat,gcj,g77,xgcc and the rest, are all found in
> the source/gcc/ directory..

You'll never find a 'gcc' binary in the build tree, presumably so as to
avoid confusion with other gccs on the system. xgcc is the file that becomes
gcc when it's installed. Since you did do a make install, you'll find the
final set of binaries - including gcc - in whichever prefix you specified on
the configure. If you didn't specify a prefix it defaults to /usr/local,
i.e. you'll find gcc in /usr/local/bin.

Please note that gcc installs a whole raft of files - it's safer to let make
install do its thing rather than using the files straight out of the build
tree.

Good luck,
Rupert.