On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:37:01 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> ** Reply to message from Horst von Brand <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 26 Sep
> 2000 10:45:10 -0400
>> Maybe this can be fixed for 2.96, but it breaks badly elsewhere (doesn't
>> compile; kernel builds but hangs/crashes at boot; kernel appears to work
>> fine while it is busy eating your disk; ...)
>
> Why is 2.96 so screwed up? I mean, the version numbers imply that 2.96 is a
> minor bugfix over 2.95, but your comments make it sound like it's a major
> change.
There is no such thing as gcc-2.96. The official GCC release is still
gcc-2.95.2. A couple of vendors (RedHat, for example) took a snapshot from
the CVS sources and branded it as gcc-2.96, but that's a known unstable
development snapshot.
The GCC people are working towards GCC 3.0, have a look at the release
criteria:
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.0/criteria.html
Erik
--
There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the
croniclers mind. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
