Hello,
Rather than ranting about this, has anybody actually tried gcc-2.96. We were on
the point of despair at work until gcc-2.96 came along. We needed to start
using some STL which 2.95 just balked at. Because of this gcc-2.96, from our
point of view, is now on a par with the M$ compiler (no flames please about
quality of code produced etc. !) and no doubt gcc-3 will be better. We had
problems with gcc-2.96, we reported bugs (mainly direct to Red Hat) and, no
doubt not because of us, they have been duly fixed. Either we keep moving
forward or stagnate. No doubt when the Borland kylix compiler comes along we
will look at what it has to offer as well.
Moreover, we are currently looking into using STLport for our standard C++
libraries. Now doubt if Mandrake switched to STLport we would have another
round of this ranting !
Red Hat were seriously questioned about the inclusion of gcc-2.96. But without
trying it how can you take these press reports with any kind of credulity. Suck
it and see, if it don't work it can always be removed (I've seen that before
with Cooker !).
Owen
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000, you wrote:
> Mattias Eriksson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > At 12 October, 2000 Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> > > And as for us, we _never_ release a distro with gcc-2.96.
> >
> > To quote Guillaume Cottenceau:
> > "if unfortunately gcc3 will not be out for our next release we will have to
> > find a solution, and it will not be to revert to 2.95 for sure."
> >
> > Have you people at mandrakesoft even discussed this matter?
>
> not really, and as for me i don't agree with gc on this
>
> but changing back to gcc-2.95 will not be that easy, that's the pb. For example
> 2.95 has pbs with "-O3 -mpentiumpro" on C++, whereas >2.95 may work...
