g++-3 and g77-3 packages under setup-x86.exe

LMH lmh_users-groups@molconn.com
Mon Aug 19 19:14:00 GMT 2013

I would be happy to build gcc-3 myself, I'm just looking for some 
documentation to get that done.

The fact the gcc-3/g77 are old means nothing to me. There are still 
millions of lines of fortran77 code out there that are being used. There 
is just no reason to spend years of man hours to update the code and 
result in new code that gives the exact numerical answers as the old 
code. I already work 80, and sometimes even 100 hours in a week 
developing new material. The less time I have to spend on projects that 
already work as is, the better. The last time I checked, important linux 
distros used in industry (Cent, Suse, etc) all still included legacy 
gcc3 development support. If you think about the investment in gcc3 
based code that is out there, and the time that could be required to 
port that to gcc4, keeping the legacy support makes allot of sense.

When gcc4 first came out, I tried moving. I was able to get my code to 
compile and link after making allot of changes to the header files, but 
I got different numerical answers on my data for some cases. This is the 
real bugbear. When you change compilers, everything has to be QC'd 
again. I tried again with gcc4.3, and found again that many header files 
had changed and it took quite a bit of work to get it to compile. When I 
did get it to work, I now got the same numerical answers as with gcc3. 
This underscores some of the issues that can happen when you change 
compilers, especially if the compiler is a relatively new version. 
Imagine some of the disasters that could have happened if I based 
research on the incorrect values from software compiled under the early 
versions of gcc4!!! There have also been allot of issues with folks 
trying to compile f77 code under gfortran.

In many cases, there is just no good reason to move compilers when you 
have mature src code that has been optimized and QC'd for 30+ years. Why 
would you want to put ANY time into maintaining such code? That is not a 
rhetorical question, so if there are some good reasons to move to newer 
versions of gcc, I would be interested in hearing the arguments. Putting 
in time to revise code and end up with the identical assembler is not 
something I am all that interested in.

Was there some particular reason to physically remove the gcc-3 bin from 
my cygwin install? What would have been the harm in leaving it there, 
since I already had it installed? I think that many cygwin users would 
find it useful to have the gcc3 packages included in the cygwin package 
manager, even if they are in the obsolete section.

If the packages still exist and can be installed manually, I would love 
to know where to find the packages and documentation. If I have to build 
it from src, that is fine to, but some documentation would really be 
helpful there as well.



Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 8/19/2013 1:27 PM, LMH wrote:
>> I recently tried to update my cygwin install and discovered I had to
>> change
>> to the setup-x86.exe package for the update to work. After finishing the
>> update, I see that some binaries have been removed from my install. Which
>> g++-3 and which g77-3 now return no findings and those compilers
>> appear to
>> have been removed from the package manager. There are some g77 listings
>> under the _obsolete category, but those are version 4.5-4.7. I very much
>> still need gcc3, so I would appreciate some information on how I can
>> add it
>> back in.
> gcc-3 and friends are desperately old and have been only grudgingly
> included in the "recent" past to support building 'setup.exe'.  But it's
> been a while now since 'setup.exe' required gcc-3.  Obviously, it is in
> your interest to step away from gcc-3 as well.  If you absolutely cannot do
> that for some reason, check your favorite search engine for the "Cygwin
> Time Machine" to take a trip back into Cygwin's past.  Or generate your
> own blast from the past by building gcc-3 yourself.

Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

More information about the Cygwin mailing list