Tim Wunder opined:
>
> An interesting point of view on the "broken" 2.96 compiler of RedHat:
> http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html
>
> I have a RedHat server here at work with 2.96 installed and have yet to
> really exercise it any, other than to update it to 2.96-85. It was used
> to compile Samba 2.2.0 with no real issues. But I have no real
> experience with it.
I'm running snapshots of GCC 3.x here and not having problems, but I have not
tried to compile the kernel with it, either. I do have a problem with this
statement, "gcc 2.96 generates better, more optimized code." Show me the numbers.
The objection most people have to GCC 2.96-RH is that by putting it out, RH
inadvertently created the perception that 2.96 was an official GCC release, which
it isn't.
Kurt
--
You can't evaluate a man by logic alone.
-- McCoy, "I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
