Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote: > In linux.debian.devel, you wrote: > >> The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99 > >> terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where > >> this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued > >> maintenance of gcc 2.95? > > [..] > > > Also, people have some code (old completed internal projects, etc), which > > probably would never be ported to newer C++ standards (it's plainly too big > > job), but which are still useful to keep working - e.g. for > > demonstration/education/similar purposes. > > > > I have to deal with the both above situations. And I believe I'm far not > > alone here. So there is user benefit from keeping gcc 2.95 in usable state. > > Not fixing internal compiler bugs - user who faces old compiler's failure > > to build code should seriously consider switching to newer versions - but > > just keeping packages installable and usable. > > I agree. Plus, compilation of C code with 2.95 is typically twice as fast > as 4.0. While 2.95 may be too buggy wrt C++, it's still useful for C.
I wouldn't recommend to compile new code with 2.95 just because it is faster. It doesn't do standard C and misses many broken constructs which are caught by newer compilers. It may still have some use for regression tests, and for old code without a prospect of getting updated. I don't know how relevant those cases are for Debian. Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]