> well, I'll try again tomorow; for now I installed 2.95 and got over it...
> I'll let you all know what I find out (I think it is gcc for it gave me an
> error screen which told me to submit a bug report to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
> however, can I trust it to compile anything else except the kernel?
On Thursday 29 November 2001 06:53 pm, dman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 06:42:04PM +0200, Dragos Delcea (Bucaresti, Ro)
wrote:
> | well, thats about it...is it known not to?
>
> Likely. Since gcc 3 is so new, it is also likely that there are bugs
> in it. The kernel tends to trigger some ra
On 29-Nov-2001 dman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 06:42:04PM +0200, Dragos Delcea (Bucaresti, Ro)
> wrote:
>| well, thats about it...is it known not to?
>
> Likely. Since gcc 3 is so new, it is also likely that there are bugs
> in it. The kernel tends to trigger some rare bugs in the compile
On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 06:42:04PM +0200, Dragos Delcea (Bucaresti, Ro) wrote:
| well, thats about it...is it known not to?
Likely. Since gcc 3 is so new, it is also likely that there are bugs
in it. The kernel tends to trigger some rare bugs in the compiler,
which is why I beleive they only sup
On 29-Nov-2001 Dragos wrote:
> well, thats about it...is it known not to?
>
> dragos
> PS sistem woody, kernel 2.4.14
>
a large reason why we still have gcc 2.9.5 as the default compiler ...
well, thats about it...is it known not to?
dragos
PS sistem woody, kernel 2.4.14
6 matches
Mail list logo
