Re: [orbitcpp-list] orbit requires gcc 2.95.2+?

[<la...@se...>]

Thanks for the quick reply!

Phil Dawes wrote:

> Hi lance,
>
> There really isn't much point regressing to orbitcpp-0.24 - there's
> not a huge amount of functionality in that release and it's not
> supported.

Good news - I've got 0.27 built and examples running (tho having
some troubles running them accross two machines at the moment,
even with care to copy the server's ior file).

> I'm confused as to why you're locked into stock compilers - I've
> upgraded many a rh6 system to gcc 2.95.2 (well 4 anyway :-).
>
> These are the rpms I've got:
>
> gcc-2.95.2-3.i386.rpm
> gcc-c++-2.95.2-3.i386.rpm
> cpp-2.95.2-3.i386.rpm
> libstdc++-2.95.2-3.i386.rpm
> libstdc++-compat-2.95.2-3.i386.rpm
> libstdc++-devel-2.95.2-3.i386.rpm

Hmmm, perhaps I shall try it again.  The initial problem I had
was misinfo - I thought 2.95.2 was not object/link compatible
(perhaps that's 2.96) as I'll need to link with others and their
objects from 2.91.  Secondly, when I installed a similar set to
the above, the linker gave me unersolved symbols from libX11.so
(something like getpum@@(GLIBC2_2) and setshm@@(GLIBC2_2))
and I freaked-out (I'm using an SGI PC).  I don't think there's any
new libX11 in the rpms above, so unless you steer me otherwise,
I will see how far I get with 0.27.

> Sorry that this is such a crap reply, but I really don't think it's
> worth your while attempting to compile that old release.

I greatly appreciate your reply.  It's quite late here and I'm on the
end of a 20 hour binge.  I will look forward to rereading your reply
in the morning and may even have the energy to retry new compilers.

Thanks,   -Lance.

-=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=-
Lance Welsh              la...@se...
Seascape Communications  (650) 327-6890
-=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=--=+=-