xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: GCC 3.0

To: "Juha Saarinen" <juha@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Giuseppe Zompatori'" <mailus@xxxxxx>, <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: GCC 3.0
From: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 09:01:23 +0200
In-reply-to: <020d01c0f871$141afdc0$0a01a8c0@den2>
References: <01061905432702.09592@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
At 15:36 19-6-2001 +1200, Juha Saarinen wrote:
:: Good News :)
::
:: http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.0/gcc-3.0.html

Oh no... yet another gcc version to worry about.

Not this is a official release version. If we can just decide to drop 2.96 we can stick with the following ;-)

gcc 2.91.66 (egcs)
gcc 2.95.{234}
gcc 3.0.{01}

Number 1 is tested and known too compile decent kernels
Number 2 (2.95.3) and higher als seem to produce working kernels but is lest tested, except for the SuSE or debian folks
Number 3 is untested but it compiles and boots but that is about it.

2.96 has been a weird product that could have been avoided, but we can't turn it back. Let's try to make RedHat ship a gcc 3 rpm and we can continue developing software using a officially released version ;)

Bye

--
Seth
Every program has two purposes one for which
it was written and another for which it wasn't
I use the last kind.


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>