Curtis L. Olson writes: > > Is there, or will there be, a plan to transition away from gcc 2.95 > > to 3.x? If so, any ideas as to the time frame? MacOS X 10.2 uses > > gcc 3.1.1 so I hope there isn't a requirement for gcc 3.2 for a > > while. > > It's my sense that gcc 3.x.x tends to be pickier than 2.95, so I'm not > aware of needing to do stupid/ugly code tricks to suppport 2.95. That > being the case, I don't feel the need to go out of my way to find > something to break the gcc-2.95 compiler, we'd probably break things > for other compilers in the proces.
Just so. Many developers (including me) are already using 3.*, and none of the changes we've made to keep 3.* happy has broken 2.95.2. The big advantage of 3.* is that it catches errors that cause problems for other compilers as well, reducing the number of follow-up porting patches. The only downside of using 3.* is the new binary format. You have to recompile any C++ (not C) libraries you're using, so in Debian, for example, you can no longer use the Metakit package -- you have to compile Metakit yourself. If you can cope with that, I strongly recommend that anyone still using 2.95 switch to 3.2, which is much more standards compliant (an important protection for us little fish swimming in the ocean with Microsoft). All the best, David -- David Megginson, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://www.megginson.com/ _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
