"Matthews, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >-----Original Message----- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > >Sent: Monday, November 26, 2001 3:09 PM > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Subject: Re: GCC3? > >"Matthews, John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > >>> I was under the assumption that GCC 3.0.2 or GCC 2.95.3 would be the > >>> best bets for stability. I thought that the use of GCC 2.96 was > >>> discouraged. > > >The other way round. > > I found the below message on GNU's GCC page. From reading this I > would think that GCC 2.96 would not be an ideal compiler to use.
It's a very nice compiler, I use it a lot. It's also the only supported one, and the only one binary compatible with the rest of your system, C++ wise. > I'd like to know what versions of GCC other people on the list are > using. [teg@halden teg]$ rpm -q gcc gcc-2.96-98 [teg@halden teg]$ > ---from http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html <snip> It's not a GNU release, it's a well-maintained branch from a year and a half ago released by Red Hat. The power of open source: When we needed something (like a working compiler), we could make it happen. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
