Marco d'Itri writes: > On Dec 19, "Marcelo E. Magallon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I hope noone is seriously considering getting gcc 3.0 into woody given > > the above time schedule. gcc 3.0 is hell when it comes to C++. It > What about shipping gcc 3.0 for C and a more stable release for C++? > We did that at egcs time.
... and we got much confusion which C compiler to use, when using g++ ... what is more "stable" than gcc-3.0 for C++? - Perhaps in 2.95.x you already know the bugs. + libstdc++ independent from glibc. + standard compliant (backward headers as well).
