On Sat, Nov 09, 2002 at 09:33:16AM -0700, 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.
GCC 3.2... Kurt -- According to Kentucky state law, every person must take a bath at least once a year. _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
