xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: gcc-2.96-nn status

To: Seth Mos <knuffie@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: gcc-2.96-nn status
From: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 18 Sep 2001 18:46:47 -0500
Cc: Jean Francois Martinez <jfm2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, alan@xxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20010919010548.0335ae28@pop.xs4all.nl>
References: <20010918124051.A30647@wwweasel.geeksrus.net> <4.3.2.7.2.20010918191512.03352ba8@pop.xs4all.nl> <4.3.2.7.2.20010919010548.0335ae28@pop.xs4all.nl>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 2001-09-18 at 18:13, Seth Mos wrote:
> At 21:26 18-9-2001 +0200, Jean Francois Martinez wrote:
> >Seth Mos a écrit :
> >
> > > At 13:02 18-9-2001 -0400, Arun Ramakrishnan wrote:
> > > >Hi,
> > > >     I heard that 2.96 is again a devel version of gcc which is sorta
> > > > unstable.I
> > >
> > > It was a CVS snapshot.
> > >
> >
> >It was a CVS snapshot some 18 months ago.  Eighteen months of bug hunting
> >later you can tell nothing about its stability.  In fact because Gcc 2.96 was
> >frozen
> >over a year before gcc 3.0  and has been far more dceployed I trust it far m
> >ore than gcc 3.0+
> 
> True, but I gather 3.0+ will pop up in a lot more distributions then just 
> redhat and mandrake.
> 3.0 is a official release which means it is not distribution specific. The 
> reason that mandrake adopted is was more or less because a lot of mandrake 
> is still redhat based. (no flame intended)

Given how far ahead of Redhat Mandrake is I doubt that is true anymore.





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