On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Mauro Tortonesi wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, [iso-8859-1] Gr�goire Colbert wrote:
>
> > J�rgen Zimmermann wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello,
> > > is there a reason behind the fact that both are in the main directory?
> > > Moreover, there are still gcc-2.95 packages in contrib along with
> > > pgcc-2.95 (which someone (Bero) identified as completely broken).
> > >
> > > My opinion: Go for gcc-2.95.1 and remove the others completely...
> > >
> > > Juergen
> >
> > I agree with you. I don't understand why we currently have both gcc and pgcc
> > in cooker.
> >
> > Gregus
> >
>
> Am I missing something? Is gcc-2.95 ready for producing highly optimized
> pentium code? If so then pgcc is an optional and everyone should use gcc.
> If not, gcc is left for compatibility and stability (probably compiling
> some big project like the linux kernel with an experimental-unstable
> compiler like pgcc has always been could not work).
Forget my previous mail. I thought gcc-2.95 was more stable than pgcc.
--
Aequam memento rebus in arduis servare mentem...
Mauro Tortonesi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://ing49.unife.it/keyser
Ferrara Linux User Group http://www.ferrara.linux.it
