Ion Badulescu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > Oh I can see why Hans wants to cut down his bug reporting load. I can also
> > say from experience it wont work. If you put #error in then everyone will
> > mail him and complain it doesnt build, if you put #warning in nobody will
> > read it and if you dont put anything in you get the odd bug report anyway.
> >
> > Basically you can't win and unfortunately a shrink wrap forcing the user
> > to read the README file for the kernel violates the GPL ..
>
> Oh, don't get me wrong, I fully understand that it's a lose-lose
> situation. All I'm saying is that it was an incredibly bad idea to have
> two compilers, one broken and one ok, identify themselves as the same
> version.
unfortunately, it's not limited to redhat and it's not limited to
redhat's gcc-2.96. gcc-2.95.2 has some bugs (a certain strength
reduction bug comes to mind). no new official gcc has come for over a
year. many distributions have applied a patch to fix the strength
reduction bug. do they all alter their version number? of those that
do, do they alter it consistently?
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
