During the bombing raid of Sat, 7 Oct 2000 13:26:13 +0200, somebody heard
Jan Niehusmann mumble in fear:
> On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 05:34:35PM +0800, Geoffrey Lee wrote:
> > hackgcc is only in contribs. Once upon a time, Chmouel put it in for main
> > but it was too unstable so we reverted to 2.95.
>
> While I prefer 2.95, too, I wonder if this has consequences on binary
> compatibility. As far as I know, C code is not a problem, but C++ code
> may be incompatible between different compiler releases.
>
> So, a binary released for redhat 7 may not work on mandrake, if it contains
> C++ code and is linked against shared C++ libraries.
>
> Does anyone know if this problem really exists or if 2.95 and 2.96 are
> compatible in this regard?
The official word from the GCC group is...RedHat messed up by
using 2.96. There's no binary compatibility with 2.95 *and* there's no
binary compatibility with the following releases either...so..RH7's stuff
doesn't work for nobody but RH7 (unless it's pure C or Fortran [I'm not
sure on this last one...memory is foggy so late at night]) What really
worries me about any thoughts of mdk going to 2.96 is the *no forward
compatibility" part...please, let's stick to 2.95 and wait for official
3.0 :)
BTW, the info comes from
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-announce/2000/msg00003.html which was linked to
from /. today/yesterday (friday eve)
Arioshi ba
Vox, who has scratched RH from his it-may-be-used list at work
and home.
--
Pain is the gift of the gods, and I'm the one they chose as their
messenger...
For info about safety in BDSM, visit Vox's Info Center at
http://www.the-vox.com/
Think of the Linux community as a niche economy isolated by its beliefs.
Kind of like the Amish, except that our religion requires us to use
_higher_ technology than everyone else.
-- Donald B. Marti Jr.
"Happiness is having a large, loving, caring, close-knit family in
another city." -- George Burns
