gcc 3.4 vs 4.0

[Stephen Adler]

Thanks for the reply. Since I'm actually writing the software, or 
building it from source, I'm in the position of  defining what target 
platform to do the development on. Thus if I choose gcc 4.0, it would be 
because it would have better optimizations, etc, but the down side would 
be that its buggier. Some people will never adopt a X.0 version of a 
package since they deam it unstable, (and I know for a fact this was the 
case with 4.0.0, my matrox G450 didn't work after I did an upgrade to 
FC4, it took about 6 months for a patched version of gcc to come out and 
the associated xorg updates.) Anyway, any help or suggestions of the 
merits of gcc 4 vs gcc 3 is greatly appreciated.

Cheers. Steve.

Jerry Feldman wrote:

>On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 06:34:48 -0500
>Stephen Adler <adler at stephenadler.com> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I'm looking to do a rather major software upgrade. Currently the project 
>>I'm working on is running 2.4 kernel flavored enterprise linux and I'm 
>>looking to switch to the 2.6 kernel flavored enterprise linux. This 
>>basically means moving from gcc 3.2 to gcc 3.4. I also have the option 
>>of using gcc 4.0 instead. Does anyone have any advice of the advantages 
>>of gcc 4 over gcc 3.4?
>>    
>>
>Someone on the SuSE list posted some problems she was having with
>Oracle. The problem tends to be not so much with C objects but with C++.
>The 4.0 compiler uses libstdc++.so.6.xxx where the 3.4 uses
>libstdc++.so.5.xxx
>
>Supposedly, the C++ ABI is supposed to be stable. 
>
>In the enterprise arena, generally, 3rd party software is generally
>certified for a specific platform/release, such as Red Hat Enterprise
>Linux 4. 
>
>  
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at blu.org
>http://olduvai.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>  
>