On Sunday 22 June 2003 11:35, Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: > Hi, > > On Sunday 22 June 2003 09:52, Zack Gilburd wrote: > > I *think* that gcc-3.3 was mistakenly unmasked by drobbins. > > > > avenj also said the tree is VERY unready for gcc-3.3. > > > > Also, I think env-update'ing would have been a better choice. > > I am using gcc 3.3 for some time now. > > I compiled everything, XFREE, glibc, KDE, perl, python, kernel, xine, > mplayer... with gcc 3.3 and have NO problems since than. > > gcc 3.3 is a lot faster than gcc 3.2 and I have less stability problems > with the same CFLAGS. > > Gl�ck Auf > Volker > > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
This is so wrong, I don't know where to begin. For one, it's a FACT that compiling a kernel takes roughly 3x longer than it did with 2.95.x. Not only does it take longer, but the end kernel comes out about 200KB larger. Also... [18:42:39] <avenj> drobbins: did you intend to mark gcc-3.3 ~x86 and unmask it? [18:42:48] <avenj> the tree is definitely not very gcc-3.3 ready That was yesterday. No offense, but I am going to go what with avenj, a highly respected and veteran Gentoo dev, over what two ML posters say. You guys can risk your systems however you would like, but I won't take my chances. Not to mention that if you upgrade glibc (and gcc AFAIK), you CAN NOT downgrade. -- Zack Gilburd http://tehunlose.com
pgp00000.pgp
Description: signature
