Bug 49871

Summary: need to upgrade gcc compiler for Red Hat 7.0
Product: [Retired] Red Hat Linux Reporter: Dan Mergens <dan>
Component: gccAssignee: Jakub Jelinek <jakub>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: David Lawrence <dkl>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 7.0   
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2001-07-25 08:45:58 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Dan Mergens 2001-07-24 18:38:43 UTC 
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.16-22 i686)

Description of problem:
The distributed and upgradable compilers for RedHat 7.0 are development
versions! You need to create an upgrade to gcc 3.0. Version 2.96 does not
work properly with C++. 

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Visibroker has the details regarding the exact problem.
2.
3.
	

Actual Results:  Constructor of base class initializes members as NULL.
Other problems with exception handling as well.

Expected Results:  Constructor should have initialized members using
derived class initialization values.

Additional info:

This bug has been reported to Visibroker. We are currently working on a
solution that requires RedHat to upgrade to a stable version of gcc. I
HIGHLY suggest that you do NOT release future versions with a development
version of gcc. (shame on you). This gives freeware a bad name. I would
like to see RedHat and other free source software succeed. Critical to this
upgrade will be to have GNU's gdb upgraded to work properly with gcc 3.0.
Comment 1 Jakub Jelinek 2001-07-24 20:22:03 UTC 
If you have a testcase, please attach it here.
gcc 2.96-RH is not a development version, it is compiler supported
by Red Hat and it was stabilizing for more than a year.
How much code have you successfully compiled with GCC 3.0?
It does not build GLIBC, nor KDE. It has still way to go till it
can be considered as main compiler for a distribution.
Also, if you encounter a bug in gcc-2.96-RH, please check latest
gcc-2.96-RH first (the one from RHL 7.1 errata is probably good enough,
the one in rawhide even better to check).
Please reopen the bug once you have testcase.
Comment 2 Dan Mergens 2001-07-24 22:03:19 UTC 
Please see http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html. 2.96 is NOT an official release,
nor is it possible that it is derived from the lastest release 2.95.3 which was
released in March of 2001. Rawhide has 2.96.94 available, but the up2date uses
2.96.85. It is CRITICAL to point out that 2.96 is a development version which
will become 3.0, but the C++ mangling of symbol names will not be preserved.
Thus libraries compiled with 2.96 are worthless when linking to 2.95 or 3.0.
This is a SERIOUS problem that must be addressed. 

Examples will follow shortly.
Comment 3 Jakub Jelinek 2001-07-25 08:45:52 UTC 
It is not official release from FSF, sure. That page has been put up mainly
because FSF does not want to support it. It does not matter much - because
Red Hat supports it. As I've said, we've spent more than a year testing and
bugfixing it (if you'll check src.rpm, there are more than 300 patches
so it is really different compiler to what has been in FSF CVS in July 2000).
gcc-2.96-RH is not a development version and it will not become 3.0.
In C++, it is incompatible with G++ 2.95.x and G++ 3.0, yes. But so were
all other previous G++, all incompatible with each other.
Libraries linked with 2.95.x are worthless when linking with 3.0 and vice versa
too, so I just don't get what's the big deal.
Awaing testcases, bugzilla is really not a good medium for flames.