Frankly, I do not think people should be trying to compile Csound for
gcc2.96, or maintaining it for gcc2.96 either. The bloody thing is free, for
heaven's sake. Just my two pins.

============================================
Michael Gogins
gogins at pipeline period com
Irreducible Productions
CsoundVST, an extended version of Csound for programming music and sound
Available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/csound/
============================================


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "steven" 
To: "Csound Developers Discussion List" 
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 7:13 PM
Subject: [CSOUND-DEV:3513] Re: widgets.cpp


> Hi Bobby,
>
> I'm not sure if this is the optimal solution as I think the whole
> fstream vs fstream.h has to do with if using gcc3 vs gcc2.96, so those
> now with 2.96 will be out of luck versus those with 3.xx.  (That's what
> I'm remembering from a while ago at least...).
>
> steven
>
>
>
> Robert McNulty Junior wrote:
>
> >I modified this file to work with cygwin.
> >
> >#include  added
> >fstream.h and strstream.h were changed to fstream and strstream.
> >If this has and adverse effect, I'll change it back.
> >I'm using gcc-3.3.1-3 as my compiler.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

Sure, I'd rather do without support for 2.96 too, but it seems there's 
enough users of 2.96 to warrant it's support. 

The thing about 2.96 vs. 3.xx is that I think there's complications that 
makes it more than just switching the compiler, as there's the host of 
libraries, like glibc, which many programs on that computer might depend 
on and need to be switched as well.  (That's at least how I understand it).

steven


Michael Gogins wrote:

>Frankly, I do not think people should be trying to compile Csound for
>gcc2.96, or maintaining it for gcc2.96 either. The bloody thing is free, for
>heaven's sake. Just my two pins.
>
>============================================
>Michael Gogins
>gogins at pipeline period com
>Irreducible Productions
>CsoundVST, an extended version of Csound for programming music and sound
>Available at http://sourceforge.net/projects/csound/
>============================================
>
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "steven" 
>To: "Csound Developers Discussion List" 
>Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2003 7:13 PM
>Subject: [CSOUND-DEV:3513] Re: widgets.cpp
>
>
>  
>
>>Hi Bobby,
>>
>>I'm not sure if this is the optimal solution as I think the whole
>>fstream vs fstream.h has to do with if using gcc3 vs gcc2.96, so those
>>now with 2.96 will be out of luck versus those with 3.xx.  (That's what
>>I'm remembering from a while ago at least...).
>>
>>steven
>>
>>
>>
>>Robert McNulty Junior wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>I modified this file to work with cygwin.
>>>
>>>#include  added
>>>fstream.h and strstream.h were changed to fstream and strstream.
>>>If this has and adverse effect, I'll change it back.
>>>I'm using gcc-3.3.1-3 as my compiler.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>
>
>
>  
>

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003, Michael Gogins wrote:

> Frankly, I do not think people should be trying to compile Csound for
> gcc2.96, or maintaining it for gcc2.96 either. The bloody thing is free, for
> heaven's sake. Just my two pins.
> 

Frankly I do not see why i should have to install gcc3b on my RedHat7.3 
machines just so I can run Csound.  The bloody thing is on what all my 
(paid) work is currently based and is what we run on a number of machines.
The very fact that there are such differences is a pointer to why the 
`upgrade' is not free.

==John ff

I may be mistaken, but I believe this is a real problem for Mac OS X users.
OS X 10.1 used gcc 2.xx to compile the system and OS X 10.2 used gcc 3.
This change for some reason completely incomprehensible to me broke a large
number of programs under 10.2 that used to run under 10.1.  (And Panther,
10.3, apparently broke some stuff again).

Many people who write OS X software are currently distributing two or more
versions of their programs for the different versions of OS X.  However,
this doesn't seem to be a problem for all software packages.

I really have no idea what the problem is other than it seems to be a
symptom of using different versions of gcc.  This boggles my mind since I
can use software under Mac OS 9 together that was compiled under a dozen
different compilers and compiler versions ....

Anthony Kozar
anthony.kozar@utoledo.edu


On 11/25/03 8:46 PM, steven etched in stone:

> The thing about 2.96 vs. 3.xx is that I think there's complications that
> makes it more than just switching the compiler, as there's the host of
> libraries, like glibc, which many programs on that computer might depend
> on and need to be switched as well.  (That's at least how I understand it).
> 
> steven
> 
> 
> Michael Gogins wrote:
> 
>> Frankly, I do not think people should be trying to compile Csound for
>> gcc2.96, or maintaining it for gcc2.96 either. The bloody thing is free, for
>> heaven's sake. Just my two pins.

I found this article explains what I was trying to say:

http://developer.apple.com/documentation/ReleaseNotes/DeveloperTools/GCC3.html

The first subheading, "Switching to GCC 3.3". This affected every OS
that is GCC-compiled.  

steven

On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 06:50, Anthony Kozar wrote:
> I may be mistaken, but I believe this is a real problem for Mac OS X users.
> OS X 10.1 used gcc 2.xx to compile the system and OS X 10.2 used gcc 3.
> This change for some reason completely incomprehensible to me broke a large
> number of programs under 10.2 that used to run under 10.1.  (And Panther,
> 10.3, apparently broke some stuff again).
> 
> Many people who write OS X software are currently distributing two or more
> versions of their programs for the different versions of OS X.  However,
> this doesn't seem to be a problem for all software packages.
> 
> I really have no idea what the problem is other than it seems to be a
> symptom of using different versions of gcc.  This boggles my mind since I
> can use software under Mac OS 9 together that was compiled under a dozen
> different compilers and compiler versions ....
> 
> Anthony Kozar
> anthony.kozar@utoledo.edu