[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Documentation, and troubles compiling

From: Alan McConnell
Subject: Re: Documentation, and troubles compiling
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 13:58:43 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.3.12i

I apologize for being late with this response.  I have been spending
a bit of time analyzing the gcc 3.0 issue, and collecting opinions
of colleagues.

In the opinion of people that I know and trust in the Linux community,
gcc 3.0 is much stricter than either 2.95.3 or the "Red Hat gcc"(which
is based on 2.95 but has RedHat bugfixes, so I'm told).  However it is
praised as being a big step forward.  So I must respectfully decline
the option of going back to 2.95.3.  I'm going to wait till the
Lilypond development has caught up with gcc 3.0, which it will
eventually have to do.

A tip:  I'm told also that gcc 3.0 handles STL better.  I am not now
nor have I ever been a C++ programmer(although I've written lots of
C), so I don't know what difference this makes to Lilypond.

Some further comments:

On Thu, Nov 08, 2001 at 05:24:45PM +0100, Jan Nieuwenhuizen wrote:
> Alan McConnell <address@hidden> writes:
> [cc to list; technical content of general interest]
        Hence I am cc-ing also to the list

> The INSTALL.txt says you need to get libkpathsea-dev, or tetex-dev,
> depending on which distribution you are.  You better install this,
> because you'll get lots of font troubles if you don't.
        I shall do this eventually if I need to.  I use TeX a lot,
        and up to now what Debian Woody installed has been fine . . .

> > I don't know anything about Flex.  Should I learn it?
> No, the only thing you need do is just, please, follow the INSTALL
> instructions.
        As I said above: this involves going back to 2.95.3, which
        I'm unwilling to do.

> > Or is there a possibility that you could send me -- perhaps post to
> > the list -- a new lexer.ll?
> There's nothing wrong with lexer.ll.  The problem arises when you
> choose to install a too new compiler (gcc-3.x), but try to use it
> together with a too old flex.
        my flex is 2.5.4.  I have to say that if the source will only compile
        with _just_ the right C++ compiler working in tandem with _just_
        the right lex, then the development path of this admittedly
        complicated SW is steering too close to the banks -- or to the
        cliffs, depending on your metaphor.

So I shall turn my attention to other issues, and wait for the
Lilypond ship to turn the gcc 3.0 corner.

Best wishes to all,


Alan McConnell        "It really doesn't matter that we've now persuaded
Pixel Analysis        every Afghan to keep ObL hidden from his enemy,     because our planes are getting a good workout."

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]