On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:37:14PM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote: > > It sounds like gcc-3.1 or gcc-3.2 will be archaic and buggy > > by the time that 5.2 and 5.3 come out. > > How would gcc-3.2 get more buggy over time than it is today?? I said it was buggy. Do you mean to imply that gcc-3.2 doesn't have a single bug in it? Admittedly I should have said "unmaintained" though -- point being that the bugs in it wouldn't be getting fixed by gcc developers who would rather fix them in 3.3... > "archaic" does apply however. > > Why the fsck can't people come up to speed on an issue before spewing > FUD? I fail to see why assuming that a software project the size of the gcc compiler has a few bugs is "FUD"... To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with "using namespa... Terry Lambert
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with "using na... David O'Brien
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with "usin... Terry Lambert
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with "... leimy2k
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with &q... Terry Lambert
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with &q... David O'Brien
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with &q... leimy2k
- Re: gcc 3.3 [Was streambuf.h broken ...... Jim Brown
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with &q... Lamont Granquist
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with &q... David O'Brien
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with &q... Lamont Granquist
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with &q... David O'Brien
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with &q... Lamont Granquist
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with &q... Terry Lambert
- Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with &q... Terry Lambert