well first off,unix/linux systems don't generally rely too heavily on file extensions, so the binary for cc would just be called "cc" which itself is usually a symbolc link to an actual binary called "gcc"

Desktop enviroments sometimes use extensions to choose like what kind of icon to display when the content is similar (like when the file is ASCII text it could be a python script, perl script, or a research paper) so very rarely will actual file extensions be sued,a nd even then, usually for other reasons (like ".d" is usually used for directories just in case your terminal doesn't support colors)

that being said, I don't use SuSE that often, I'm more of a gentoo or RH/Fedora man, but I believe YaST is the SuSE setup tool, and if you go in there, you should see where to install the binaries for the compiler.

If there's something wrong with the exact version of the CC (which I doubt if you're new and that's usually an issue when you get to using advanced stuff) then you might be able to locate the RPM (binary installation package) for the version you're needing.

the reason I'm suggesting other things is cause compiling gcc from scratch is kind of a bold move, and it requires a knowledge of how the build process goes and what specifically the gcc build package will assume about your system, terminal, etc and so it's more or less just done A) in a last ditch effort to get a program to compile a feature not available except in a new/unsupported version of gcc, B) you're building your own distro or C) are debugging gcc for submitting fixes to the developers

I think option A is more likely, but I doubt any of the three apply and you should use the binaries that came on the CD's you used to install, as those package have been tested to work well at least in their binary form on the system you're using.

</long-winded-explanation>