Can I use old gcc?

Ralf Corsepius corsepiu at
Tue Sep 2 03:09:40 UTC 2003

On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 13:14, Leon Pollak wrote:
> On Monday 01 September 2003 08:44, you wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 21:24, Leon Pollak wrote:
> > > Hello.
> > > 	For some specific reason I am forced to use the old gcc 2.95 (old
> > > binults, etc...).
> > I wonder why one would want to do THAT :-) ?
> The cause is very prosaic :-))
> gcc 3.2.xx requires gdb> 5.2. 
What is it that causes this requirement?

> I want to work with mpc860-bdm in linux, which 
> was developed for 5.0. My attempts to patch 5.2 failed - too many structural 
> changes where done to 5.2 and my knowledge of gdb is zero.

> BTW, my previous question you commented about the debug info is the 
> illustration to what I said above - gdb 5.0 does not recognize the DWARF info 
> produced by gcc 3.2. And last objdump is too unable to see it
objdump isn't able to read the powerpc debug info produced by gcc-3.2.x
but is able to read the powerpc debug info produced by gcc-3.x?

objdump is part of binutils, not of gcc. As you probably are using the
same binutils for gcc-2.95.x and gcc-3.x, this would indicate an
incompatibility between binutils and gcc and/or a necessity to use newer
binutils (2.14?) for powerpc-gcc-3.x.

I would not be surprised if they (probably the gcc-folks) have changed
the default debugging format used by gcc-3.x.
If this assumption holds, you might get things working by explicitly
specifying a particular debug format (-g<gcc-2.95.x's debugging format>)
during compilation.

You could try to find out which debug info format is used by gcc-2.95.x
and try to explicitly pass a corresponding option to gcc during
compilation to override the default.


More information about the users mailing list