Mind showing me a program that cannot be compiled with gcc 2.96 that can be compile with 2.95? (yes, it's called 2.95, not 2.9.5 - do gcc -v)
RedHat gcc's 2.96-110 seems for me very stable and produces faster code then 2.95, and i have few compilers here on my machine (2.95, 2.96, 3.0.4, 3.1, Intel C/C++ compiler) so I have some experience ;) Hetz On Thursday 06 June 2002 22:53, Shay Elkin wrote: > As this distribution comes with GCC 2.96 as the default compiler, and as > I still think 2.95.3 is the most stable GCC version yet (Though reports > on GCC 3.1 make me consider installing it), I tried to compile > gcc-2.9.5. > > I ran the configuration script with the '--program-suffix=-2.95.3' > option, but the binaries are named without that suffix. > > Anybody got a clue to why? (I checked, and the argument is saved in > config.status). > > -- > Shay Elkin. > > ================================To unsubscribe, send mail to > [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message > body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ================================================================= To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
