[ Off-topic, but I might as well as ask here. ]
kris buggenhout wrote:
> I find this really strange ... I have been using gcc3.1 for a
> few months now and I havent had the slightest problem in compiling
> kernels or whatsoever...
I'm assuming by 3.1 you mean 3.0.1 (released August 25th). I have
been very curious as to the status of 3.0.x at this point.
We all know about RedHat's ripping ** of the incomplete GCC 2.96
development branch from the GCC tree, for which the Cygnus guys
incremented to 2.97 which eventually became the 3.0 release. I had
always assumed that 3.0.x would be more stable but backward
compatible with egcs 1.1.2 (isn't that aka gcc 2.91.66?) and gcc
2.95. RedHat has also included GCC 3.0.1 in the latest RedHat 7.1
release, although it still compiles stock RPMs against 2.96 ** for
obvious binary compatibility in the same major version (i.e. the X
I'm assuming the next move for RedHat in 8.0 (among other vendors)
will be the adoption of 3.0.x, safely putting the 2.96 bastard **
behind them (which Mandrake has seemingly adopted for their 8.x
series to maintain compatibility with RedHat). I'm curious as to
know if Linus and/or major distros are going to be moving to
building their kernels under 3.0.x in the near future? Or is that a
move that will only be made for the new 2.5/3.0 tree that will be
BTW, 3.0.2 just came out yesterday (October 25th). The GCC steering
committee is targeting a 3.1 release for April 2002. I'm not too
familar with GCC revisioning, and am curious if they follow a
BSD-like numbering (i.e. .0 is "test," .1+ is "release"). Or is
3.0.x considered "soup"?
IMHO, the sooner that we get to 3.0.x, the better. God knows Cygnus
is doing a fantastic job as the GCC maintainer. I have used their
commercial products before in an aerospace development environment.
** Disclaimer: I do understand some of the reasons why RedHat moved
to GCC 2.96 in 7.0, so don't consider this a "bash." And once they
did it for 7.0, they had to for 7.1 and 7.2, to maintain binary
Bryan "TheBS" Smith mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx chat:thebs413
Engineer AbsoluteValue Systems, Inc. http://www.linux-wlan.org
President SmithConcepts, Inc. http://www.SmithConcepts.com
Web site defacements are as much of a national security risk as
inner city kids spray painting. There is nothing of value, and
nothing that can't be fixed with a little re-paint. You'd have
to have the equivalent stupidity of someone parking an F-18 in
downtown LA. Even then, the only damage would be a new scheme!
The US government wants life imprisonment for such "terrorism."