[C++-sig] Boost, Boost.Python and G++ 2.96 on VxWorks

[Daryle Walker]

On 12/17/04 2:40 PM, "Greg Copeland" <GCopeland at efjohnson.com> wrote:

> Ya, that's what I feared.  I've heard (unconfirmed) that one vendor's
> 2.96 may very well be different from another vendor's 2.96 release.
> Your comment seems to confirm it.

[There may be some flaming in this post.]

As I understand it, there was _never_ an official GCC 2.96 release.  The GNU
group uses a system where all version numbers ending in an even digit are
exclusively non-final (i.e. alpha/beta) and all version numbers ending in an
odd digit are exclusively final.  After an odd-number release, the
intermediate version in CVS immediately gets renamed to an even number, then
further work is done, then a rename to an odd number precedes the next
release (and the cycle continues).

Certain vendors (e.g. Red Hat) plucked out the GCC code out of CVS at some
random point after 2.95 and stuck it on their CDs.  This suckered many
uninformed users into compiling with beta software.  For you, either
downgrade to 2.95 or upgrade to any of the 3.x releases.  And tell all of
your friends to do the same.  Sorry, but the definition of "GCC 2.96" is too
unstable for any developer to reliably help you.

Red Hat, and any others, should apologize to all of their users for being
inattentive and hoisting this problem on the users.  And apologize to all
the developers, like me, who have to "waste" time to educate everyone about
the mistake.  (Worse, Red Hat picked an intermediate version whose line died
without ever having a final release.  So users have to pick either an older
version without fixed bugs or do a major reorganization for jumping to a new
compiler line.)


>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: c++-sig-bounces at python.org [mailto:c++-sig-bounces at python.org] On
>>  Behalf Of Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve
>> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 1:24 PM
>> To: Development of Python/C++ integration
>> Subject: RE: [C++-sig] Boost, Boost.Python and G++ 2.96 on VxWorks
>> 
>> --- Greg Copeland <GCopeland at efjohnson.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> What type of problems did you encounter?  Can you describe the types of
>>> "workarounds" that you had to implement?  Did you encounter any problems
>>> using boost/operators.hpp?  Did you get complaints about template default
>>> arguments...etc...?
>> 
>> No, this doesn't ring any bells. The problems I had were much more subtle.
>> 
>> I noticed that the gcc 2.96 that comes with Red Hat 7.1 behaves differently
>> than the gcc 2.96 that comes with Red Hat 7.3. Maybe you have yet another
>> variety that calls itself gcc 2.96?

-- 
Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT hotmail DOT com