Re: [Condor-users] compiling Condor

[David Kotz <dkotz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Ian.

The main goal would be to (hopefully) reduce the number of users who are
running vanilla because they're frustrated by weird linking problems. I
don't know if it will really help, but the odds of weird issues cropping
up when our default is gcc 4.2.x and Condor is built with 3.2.x *seem*
like they'd be higher. 

- dave

On Thu, 2010-08-12 at 15:14 -0400, Ian Chesal wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:05 PM, David Kotz <dkotz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>         >From running strings on our Condor binaries, it seems that
>         they were
>         compiled with a geriatric version of gcc -- 3.2.3.  Is that
>         because it
>         does not compile correctly with current versions of gcc?  I've
>         considered a local build, but I'd like to know what
>         constraints there
>         are first.
> 
> 
> I guess the obvious question is: what do you hope to accomplish by
> compiling with a newer version of gcc? Or are you just trying to do a
> local build with local features?
> 
> 
> It will compile on Linux w/4.1.2 without any issues.
> 
> 
> - Ian
>  
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> Cycle Computing, LLC
> The Leader in Open Compute Solutions for Clouds, Servers, and Desktops
> Enterprise Condor Support and Management Tools
> 
> http://www.cyclecomputing.com
> http://www.cyclecloud.com
> _______________________________________________
> Condor-users mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send a message to condor-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxx with a
> subject: Unsubscribe
> You can also unsubscribe by visiting
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/condor-users
> 
> The archives can be found at:
> https://lists.cs.wisc.edu/archive/condor-users/