On Apr 1, 2007, at 10:42 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 02:20:10PM +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul
Brook:
If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already
obsolete release
(3.3) seems a strange choice. At
]
To: Joe Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Marcin Dalecki [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Paul Brook [EMAIL PROTECTED];
gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Dave Korn [EMAIL PROTECTED]; ganesh subramonian [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 11:32:43 AM
Subject: Re: how to convince someone about migrating from gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.x
if not for the real compiler as such, what advantages would i get on
using newer glibc, libstdc++ ?? would these features be tied to
some kernel version linux-2.4 vs 2.6 ( something like thread
support).
Let's step back a bit.
If you look at this page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
Joe Buck wrote:
No, one does not have to adapt gradually. It is no harder to switch from
2.95 to 4.1.2 than it is to switch from 2.95 to 3.3. Either way, you'll
have to get out a C++ book, learn C++, and recode your code in actual C++.
There will be some cases where going to 3.3 will require
On 01 April 2007 07:08, ganesh subramonian wrote:
Hi
I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross
compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c++
and makes extensive use of the stl libraries. We would not be changing
our operating system or
On Sunday 01 April 2007 12:01, Dave Korn wrote:
On 01 April 2007 07:08, ganesh subramonian wrote:
Hi
I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross
compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c++
and makes extensive use of the stl libraries.
On 01 April 2007 12:59, Paul Brook wrote:
On Sunday 01 April 2007 12:01, Dave Korn wrote:
On 01 April 2007 07:08, ganesh subramonian wrote:
Hi
I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross
compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c++
and
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul Brook:
If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already
obsolete release
(3.3) seems a strange choice. At this point I'd recommend skipping 3.x
altogether and going straight to gcc4.1/4.2.
Many of the improvements in
On 4/1/07, Marcin Dalecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul Brook:
If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already
obsolete release
(3.3) seems a strange choice. At this point I'd recommend skipping 3.x
altogether and going
Ganesh wrote:
I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross
compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c++
and makes extensive use of the stl libraries. We would not be changing
our operating system or processor architecture (so portability is not
a
Richard Guenther wrote:
At least you'd have the chance that reported bugs may eventually get
fixed - with a 3.x (or even 4.0.x) release there's no chance of that unless
you are willing to pay (and find) someone to do it.
Which of course is one possibility, it is not always clear that updating
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 02:20:10PM +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul Brook:
If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already
obsolete release
(3.3) seems a strange choice. At this point I'd recommend skipping 3.x
Many of the improvements in c++ code generation were as a result of
tree-ssa, you only get with 4.x.
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 01:19:24PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
It is however a bigger step change, and a correspondingly bigger risk.
There are arguments in favour of not running with the
Hi
I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross
compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c++
and makes extensive use of the stl libraries. We would not be changing
our operating system or processor architecture (so portability is not
a very
14 matches
Mail list logo
