Seth Mos a écrit :
> 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
> >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)
I don't care which one is official what I care is which one crashes o
and which one miscompiles less often
For now gcc 3.0 is unproven and at least gcc 3.0 (don't know about gcc
has some horrific bugs far worse than those gcc 2.96 had in september
Also RedHat and Mandrake have far more users than all the remaining
combined. Both RedHat ad Mandrake are poised to ship gcc 3 but gcc 2.96
the default compiler.
Mandrake is no longer a clone of RedHat. Factors were gcc 2.96 superior
respective to gcc 2.95, faster executables (benchmarked) and perhaps
> The gcc people are working hard on getting 3.0 stable. Most kernel
> developers I met only work with official compilers. Not with wat shipped
> with their distro.
Kernel developers only accepted gcc 2.95 much later than it becvame
First official label does not confer magically bug free status and
kernel is very specific and requires specific testing of the compiler.
> > > >heard posting saying that we shud downgrade to 2.95 possibly.I think with
> > > >RH 7.1
> > > >,u no longer need kgcc to compile things correctly.gcc itself works.In
> > fact,i
> > >
> > > For most userland programs it seems to be fine but I have encounterd some
> > > utilities that don't like it.
> >Gcc 2.96 requires C++ functions being declared before their use. I have
> >many programs who need to be fixed.
> The same for gcc-3.0
> > > For kernels kgcc might be a better solution.
> >The only gcc tested by kernel people are egcs and gcc 2.95. There is ever a
> >danger kernel
> >will break if compiled with a different compiler. On another hand gcc
> >2.96 has
> >been used in
> >the two most popular Linux distributions so is a good test bench.
> Expect more reports of 3.0 when that turns up in a new distribution.
> > > >heard sby commenting that now kgcc seems broke in RH 7.1 and so it is
> > safe to
> > > >use only gcc in RH 7.1;while it was mandatory to use kgcc in RH 7.0!!!!
> > >
> > > Not that I know off.
> >AFAIK kgscc is no longer shipped with 7.1.
> [seth@stimpy /data]$ which kgcc
> [seth@stimpy /data]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
> Red Hat Linux release 7.1 (Seawolf)
> [seth@stimpy /data]$ rpm -ql compat-egcs|grep kgcc
> [seth@stimpy /data]$
> > Reason kgcc was in 7.0 was because
> >gcc 2.96 did not compile kernel 2.2. gcc 2.96 had its bugs but in that
> >case it
> >was due
> >to broken code in kernel that old more tolerant compilers accepted but
> >should not
> >kernel 2.4 has no longer this problem.
> It's called compat-egcs for exactly that reason. It is a compatibility
> package including libs to compile packages for redhat 6.2 environments.
> > -march=i686. This will be a bit faster than compiling for i686. Gcc
> >genrates faster code than egcs but if you are wary of it the above is the
> Comromises build the world
> Every program has two purposes one for which
> it was written and another for which it wasn't
> I use the last kind.
Jean Francois Martinez
The Independence project: because Linux should be for everyone