> Basically, our 2.96 is the occupation of a number that was abandoned by the > gcc team. That abandonment came about because another distro occupied the > number. The two came from the CVS development tree at very different times > and do not really resemble each other very much, yet the binaries are > mostly compatible. > > It may be built from many patches out of the cvs tree, but it consistently > produces reliable code. Most of what people see as a faw in it is that a > lot of sloppy code written for 2.95 and earlier expected the compiler to > load standard headers by default. 2.96 needs the explicit #include > statements. Ok, the biggest problem i have with it is that trying to build a cross compiler using the gnu gcc 2.95.3 sources seems to have problems, would i be better to compile gcc/binutils using kgcc? (which i believe is egcs). Maybe most of the problems i have are due to sloppy code as you say, and therefore i would ask which libraries specificallly are no longer included as default. Oh, and are you saying that your numbering gcc as 2.96 has nothing to do with th gnu version numbering system? As i thought their 2.96 series were just 3.0 betas (in which case i am a little mixed up as i used to use a standard gnu version of 2.96). Thanks Tom
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://wwww.mandrakestore.com
