Re: g++ versus gcc

[LLeweLLyn Reese <llewelly at lifesupport dot shutdown dot com>]

"William Trenker" <wtrenker@hotmail.com> writes:

> (This has probably been asked a million times, but I did search the
> lists and came up with only sketchy information.)
> 
> Today I upgraded my Linux 2.4.19 system from gcc 2.95.3 to gcc 3.2.  I
> used this test program:
> 
> #include <iostream>
> struct test {
>     test(char* m) : msg(m) {};
>     char* msg;
> };
> main()
> {
>     test* ptest = new test("Hello World");
>     cout << ptest->msg << endl;
> };
> 
> To build this I used the time-honored:  "gcc -o test test.cpp".
> 
> The build failed with the compiler complaining that "cout" and "endl"
> weren't declared, and the linker grumbled that it couldn't resolve
> references to "new", "delete", "cout", "basic_ostream" and other
> standard objects.
> 
> A search on the mailing lists, and with Google, pointed out that I
> have to explicitly decare namespace "std" -- gcc no longer defaults to
> "std".  Further searching suggested that I should be using "g++", not
> "gcc".  Doing both these things resulted in my little test program
> building and running without error.
> 
> So now, it seems, we need to change all our makefiles, or the relevant
> environment variables, to use "g++" instead of "gcc" for building c++
> files.

No. Change them to use a variable - $(CXX) . Maintainable makefiles do
    this anyway.

> 
> I would appreciate confirmation that the use of "g++" has officially
> replaced the use of "gcc" for c++ builds.

I'm not an official gcc rep, but even with 2.95.3 I was never able to
    get significant C++ prgrams to link without using 'g++'.

However I can't find explicit support for this in their
    documentation. Spooky.

[snip]