Mattias Eriksson wrote:
>
> In what way will it be better prepaired for gcc3?
gcc3.0 have a lot of parts redesigned and rewritten. Block reordering
optimisation and other stuff. It will be all this gcc code that will be
thoroughly tested by having it in cooker as soon as possible.
> I can accept that you have gcc-2.96 as a test compiler to verify that things
> compile. Remember that gcc2.96 is not going to be binary compatible with gcc3.
This is binary compatibility of object files and executables that will be
a problem. This is only one side of the whole thing.
> And was the step from gcc 2.8 to gcc 2.95 so painful? Did you use some
> developer snapshot of gcc as defult compiler then?
>
> I just dont see why you would have to use a gcc snapshot as the default
> compiler? Explain it to me as I was 6 years old, cause I must be missing
> some big part of the pussle here!
Its not such a big deal, as its only in cooker, which is never guaranteed
to be stable anyway, and never meant to be run on production systems.
--
FYI I am desubscribing to cooker for now
--
- Antony Suter ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) "Examiner" openpgp:71ADFC87
- "And how do you store the nuclear equivalent of the universal solvent?"
