Which gcc version compiled

On the Rosetta download page, RosettaCommons provides pre-compiled versions of Rosetta for some but not all of the major operating systems Rosetta supports. These downloads should already be compiled in release mode, and are ready to run. Unfortunately, due to the variation in operating systems, not every distribution and version can be provided.

The easiest course of action is simply to use another compiler which is already installed. For example, if your gcc compiler is too old, your clang compiler may be acceptable but see the section "Standard Library Support" for caveats. Often, computers will have multiple different versions of the same type of compiler. For example, if the default gcc is too old, there may be a newer version of gcc installed elsewhere on the system. Particularly with cluster systems, newer compiler version are often available through "modules" or "packages" which can be loaded and unloaded with commandline commands e.

Each cluster system has different mechanisms for loading packages. Consult the documentation for your cluster or talk to your cluster administrator to see which compilers are available on your system. If all of the currently installed compilers are insufficient, the easiest course of action is to submit a request to your system administrator to install an updated compiler.

The updated compiler need not be installed as the default compiler for the system. Incremental bumping of a library pre-defined macro. For releases before 3. These macros are defined as the date the library was released, in compressed ISO date format, as an integer constant.

Up to GCC 4. Since GCC 4. The macro value might be a date after a feature was added to the development trunk, but the release could be from an older branch without the feature. For example, in the 5. You also can't test for the exact values listed below to try and identify a release, because a snapshot taken from the gccbranch on would have the same value for the macro as the 6.

This macro was defined as the released version of the library, as a string literal. This was only implemented in GCC 3. This is only implemented in GCC 3. It turns out that most of the configure options that change default behavior will impact the mangled names of exported symbols, and thus impact versioning and compatibility. For more information on configure options, including ABI impacts, see: here.

At that point, the macro attempts to make sure that all the requirement for symbol versioning are in place. For more information, please consult acinclude. If you don't see this line in the configure output, or if this line appears but the last word is 'no', then you are out of luck. Here's an example:. Adding an explicit copy constructor or destructor to a class that would otherwise have implicit versions.

This will change the way the compiler deals with this class in by-value return statements or parameters: instead of passing instances of this class in registers, the compiler will be forced to use memory. This is accomplished by two techniques that separate the API from the ABI: forcing undefined references to link against a library binary for definitions.

For parts of the standard that have an explicit list of required instantiations, the GNU extension syntax extern template can be used to control where template definitions reside. By marking required instantiations as extern template in include files, and providing explicit instantiations in the appropriate instantiation files, non-inlined template functions can be versioned.

In addition, these techniques have the additional benefit that they reduce binary size, which can increase runtime performance. All symbols in the shared library binary are processed by a linker script at build time that either allows or disallows external linkage. I'll have to wait until tomorrow when my Linux development PC is set up. It's crazy though, we have to verify gcc versions for executables, but they don't tell us how.

Typical work! If they don't know how, and you don't know, how will they know you're not making it up? Have you tried aptitude show gcc I'll give that a go tomorrow, thanks. I work for a games development company, and the game we're working on will end up going to Sony, and they know how to check this! Can you recompile? I work on the testing side so I don't have the source code.

I'm here to make sure the development teams don't screw up. Learn more. Ask Question. Asked 11 years, 8 months ago. Active 4 years, 5 months ago. Viewed 56k times. Improve this question. Daniel Serodio 3, 5 5 gold badges 37 37 silver badges 32 32 bronze badges. Ilyes Gouta Ilyes Gouta 1 1 gold badge 6 6 silver badges 3 3 bronze badges. Add a comment. Active Oldest Votes. X strip -R. Improve this answer. Nothing at all. If I include literal strings in the source code, those are correctly found by strings.

You would need to specify the -a option to strings , since the utility will not look inside the.