On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 10:47:24PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote: > 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).
FYI, I can't get any current C++ applications to compile with libstdc++-v3 on ppc and sparc. How does one allow backward compatible builds? -- -----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------ / Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \ ` [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] ' `---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
