On Tue, Nov 04, 2008 at 11:23:54AM -0700, chromatic wrote: > On Tuesday 04 November 2008 03:30:16 HG wrote:
> > ccversion='', gccversion='2.96 20000731 (Red Hat Linux 7.2 > > 2.96-118.7.2)' > > Hm, I'm not sure it's worth our time to work around bugs in an eight year old > GCC (and RH 7.2 is ... well, Fedora is at version 10). If we're not seeing a > similar problem in GCC 4.x, we're happy to suggest a workaround, but I lean > toward marking this as "wontfix". http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html It has come to our attention that some GNU/Linux distributions are currently shipping with ``GCC 2.96''. We would like to point out that GCC 2.96 is not a formal GCC release nor will there ever be such a release. Rather, GCC 2.96 has been the code- name for our development branch that will eventually become GCC 3.0. .... If you encounter a bug in a compiler labeled 2.96, we suggest you contact whoever supplied the compiler as we can not support 2.96 versions that were not issued by the GCC team. And indeed, from my memory, it was initially very buggy, although RedHat managed to fix quite a few bugs in their later releases of it. I was dis-inclined to support it even when it was brand new, because it was buggy as hell, and because it was an upstart vendor manouver completely counter to what the authors of the software wanted. But in the end, the real victims of corporate stupidity are the users :-( Nicholas Clark
