On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Steve Langasek wrote: > gcc 3.0 is, generally, better than gcc 2.95.4. I know one reason why > woody is shipping with 2.95 as the default on all architectures that > support it is because switching to 3.0 will require a recompile of all > C++ software in the distribution; but if you're just compiling C code, I > can't see any reason that gcc 3.0 wouldn't be sufficient for your own > use. It's certainly the compiler that will likely see the most bugfixes.
gcc-3.0 is crap. it misscompiles mipslinux kernel, compiles slowly and generates slow code. do not use it and protect yourself from pain ;-) i didn't believe to Ralf and tried myself. bad, bad... go for egcs-1.1.2 gcc-3.0.3 is a little bit better, but egcs-1.1.2 still rulez. regards, ladis
