[GRASS5] C and C++ compiler changes?

[Bernhard Reiter]

On Wed, Oct 22, 2003 at 06:44:55PM +0200, Thierry Laronde wrote:

> This is not a criticism against Mandrake or others, this is just a
> caveats: we need to know with every report what are the compiler
> (origine and version) and the libc (and by the way the locales too
> since running anything other than `env LC_ALL=C LANGUAGE=C ./configure
> [options]' is problematic too). 

Yes if strange problems occur more information about the system
including versions of the C library and the compiler might
be necessary to find the actual bugs. 
In many cases though, the first reality check is to see if
the same bug can be reproduced on other systems which 
often is the case. So there is no immedeate need to make reporting
compiler and library versions in bug report mandatory.

> And perhaps should we recommend a particular version of the compiler 
> (and at least "our" build daemons need to run a fairly stable version 
> of an ANSI C (C++) compiler with a fairly stable libc so that we can 
> ship binaries for the ones unable to compile).

I don't think we should recommend particular versions
of compilers and c libraries. It is interesting to get reports
from people that can compile and run a certain version of GRASS
on their platform.

I wrote my remark on the first two postings 
because they could give the false impression that GNU compiler
and C libraries are somewhat unstable. Actually gcc and GNU libc
are very stable and reliable on the C part in the overall picture.
The original postings were not making clear that most statements
were geared towards the C++ situation, which indeed is not as
stable as everybody likes. I credit some of those difficulties
to the C++ language. :)

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/grass-dev/attachments/20031023/2960df2c/attachment.bin