On Wed, Sep 18, 2002 at 09:48:02AM -0400, Net Llama! wrote: > On Wed, 18 Sep 2002, Tim Wunder wrote: > > OK, Caldera eW3.1 base install (but I guess by now it's a far cry from that...) >with updated kernel 2.4.18 with preepmt patch, and glibc 2.2.5. > > I've been having a persnickety atexit problem with many of the programs I've been >trying to compile of late and my latest information tells me that a likely fix is an >upgrade of gcc. I currently have gcc-2.95.2 as provided by Caldera for their eW3.1.1 >product. > > So, my question is: > > Should I update to gcc 3.2, 3.1.1 or stick with the 2.95.x tree and use 2.95.3? > > Tim, could you fix your wordwrap, its set to something like 500 right now. > Anyhoo, this really depends on whether you want bleeding edge or stable. > Right now there is no compelling reason to go to ta 3.x version of gcc, > othe than just because. 2.95.3 or 2.96.x (for those using redhat) is > considered the latest stable release.
There's nothing stable about 2.96 because it was never released. IMHO, it's as "stable" as glibc 2.0.7. There are compelling reasons to use 3.2, however, such as more and better optimizations, better preprocessor, Ada95 (if that sort of thing matters to you), and so forth. It is slower than 2.95.3, but I expect that to improve as time goes by. Kurt _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
