uhh...Collin, its gcc-3.2, not gcc-2.3.
On 11/09/2002 08:33 AM, Collins wrote:
On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 20:42:43 -0800 Tony Alfrey
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 08 November 2002 02:32 pm, Ben Duncan wrote:
All of these seems to be in the "rush" to go to the GCC 3.2
compiler
Why the new compiler?? What doesn't compile with 2.95.x ??
<snip>
You might ask why for most any new development. Why did they have to
change glibc in such an incompatible fashion a few years back? That
created grief (and unstable releases) for months. One of the supposed
reasons for gcc 2.3 was better support for AMD chips. Also they have
tightened up a lot of "supposedly" benign violations in C++ syntax -
you get a lot more warnings out of software recompiled with GCC 2.3.
GCC 2.3 is the wave of the future, but the crest is not here yet. The
kernel still recommends 2.95.x although it can be successfully
compiled with the new whiz kid.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
L. Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo: http://netllama.ipfox.com
8:40am up 27 days, 21:56, 1 user, load average: 1.29, 0.93, 0.78
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
