On 17 Jan 2012, at 13:35, Jonathan Wakely wrote: >>>> When looking at http://gcc.gnu.org/, there are some large links to the >>>> versions, but none for 4.7. >>> >>> GCC 4.7 has not been released yet. >> >> There is a development version. You might compare with the layout at >> http://lilypond.org/ > > That's not the same, the GCC trunk isn't just an "unstable" > development version, it sometimes doesn't even build and may be > completely unsuitable for end users.
It is the same for LilyPond - there happens be volunteers building binaries, which require some package chasing. In fact, the GUI has not been working for awhile on my platform, and as it happens, the "unstable" branch has a fix. >> A confusing thing is that one can get to the SVN version via the other >> versions links, but then one does not get the appropriate information about >> GCC 4.7. > > If you check out svn trunk then of course you would expect to get the > latest, unreleased code, and you probably should have read the > installation docs - a compiler isn't just another app. > > IMHO most people who try to build from source probably shouldn't be > doing so, they should be installing a binary package supplied by their > OS/distro vendor. Those who specifically want to test newer versions > should look for and read the docs before rushing into building it, > even if they have to spend an extra minute finding those docs (which > as I've said, are linked to on the front page in the main menu.) Well, I read them for GCC 4.6, but the unusual part slipped my mind. It would have helped with a reminder. BTW, on my platform, the GC must be built from the archive, but here are some clear instructions: http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Hans_Boehm/gc/#where There is a similar snag for GMP. If building from without the directory is a requirement, I think you should ask the the config developers for a way to ensure that. One idea: ./configure might create a directory ../<distribution>-build/ and configure for that. But you should consider what people in general do. This somewhat heated discussion perhaps suggests you have had a past history of people doing the same thing. GCC 4.7 was of interest to me because it supports the C++11 threads and atomic features, which it 4.6 doesn't on my platform. It could be that you see more trying this version because of that, better C++11 support. Hans
