On Fri, Jul 20, 2001 at 09:19:10PM +1000, Geoffrey Lee wrote: > egcs is not compatible with gcc 2.95.x. gcc 2.95.x is not compile with > gcc 2.96. gcc 2.96 is not compatible with gcc 3.0. > > End of story. We have distributed egcs and gcc 2.95 before, we had > incompatibility, why are you worrying so much? I'm not worrying. It's just that for LM 8.1, it would be nice to have gcc 3.0... And to have the c++ compatibilities libs (there was a link to a missing library in the 8.0 when it was first distributed. Don't know if it was fixed, we're using 7.2 for our work, and I didn't try with the 8.0 since that time) with gcc 2.95.x, so that you could upgrade your system without needing to recompile everything. Cheers, -- Xavier
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.... J . A . Magallon
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and n... Gwenole Beauchesne
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Christian Zoffoli
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Thierry Vignaud
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Blue Lizard
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.... Guillaume Cottenceau
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Guillaume Cottenceau
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Xavier Bertou
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Guillaume Cottenceau
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Geoffrey Lee
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Xavier Bertou
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.... Geoffrey Lee
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.... Guillaume Cottenceau
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Juan Quintela
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? dam's
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? JoAnne
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Guillaume Cottenceau
- Re: [Cooker] Why gcc 2.96 and not 3.0? Guillaume Cottenceau
