according to the GCC home page, 2.96 (the version included with rh7 is not
a stable release. Quoted from the GCC Home Page:
October 6th, 2000
It has come to our attention that some GNU/Linux distributions are
currently shipping with ``GCC 2.96''.
We would like to point out that GCC 2.96 is not a formal GCC release nor
will there ever be such a release. Rather, GCC 2.96 has been the code- name
for our development branch that will eventually become GCC 3.0.
Current snapshots of GCC, and any version labeled 2.96, produce object
files that are not compatible with those produced by either GCC 2.95.2 or
the forthcoming GCC 3.0. Therefore, programs built with these snapshots
will not be compatible
with any official GCC release. Actually, C and Fortran code will probably
be compatible, but code in other languages, most notably C++ due to
incompatibilities in symbol encoding (``mangling''), the standard library
and the application binary
interface (ABI), is likely to fail in some way. Static linking against C++
libraries may make a binary more portable, at the cost of increasing file
size and memory use.
To avoid any confusion, we have bumped the version of our current
development branch to GCC 2.97.
Please note that both GCC 2.96 and 2.97 are development versions; we do not
recommend using them for production purposes. Binaries built using any
version of GCC 2.96 or 2.97 will not be portable to systems based on one of
If you encounter a bug in a compiler labeled 2.96, we suggest you contact
whoever supplied the compiler as we can not support 2.96 versions that were
not issued by the GCC team.
Please see http://gcc.gnu.org/snapshots.html if you want to use our latest
snapshots. We suggest you use 2.95.2 if you are uncertain.
The GCC Steering Committee
Why on earth would you include an incomplete version of GCC with RH7?????
The wv part should be fixed in wv 0.6.2 (at least wv developers told me),
the gcc segfault (gcc should obviously not crash even on bad input) is fixed
in 2.96-57 (in rawhide) and above and will appear in the next gcc errata.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 19392 ***
Oops, sorry, this was resolval for #19545 typed mistakenly into this ID.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 18803 ***