I just wondered since I've been using 2.95.2 to compile virtually everything and nothing blows up so far. But then the stuff I compile isn't all that exotic. Kernels, kde, and now some Palm stuff.
On Saturday 09 November 2002 08:40 am, Net Llama! wrote: > uhh...Collin, its gcc-3.2, not gcc-2.3. > > On 11/09/2002 08:33 AM, Collins wrote: > > On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 20:42:43 -0800 Tony Alfrey > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On Friday 08 November 2002 02:32 pm, Ben Duncan wrote: > >>>All of these seems to be in the "rush" to go to the GCC 3.2 > >>>compiler > >> > >>Why the new compiler?? What doesn't compile with 2.95.x ?? > >><snip> > > > > You might ask why for most any new development. Why did they have > > to change glibc in such an incompatible fashion a few years back? > > That created grief (and unstable releases) for months. One of the > > supposed reasons for gcc 2.3 was better support for AMD chips. > > Also they have tightened up a lot of "supposedly" benign violations > > in C++ syntax - you get a lot more warnings out of software > > recompiled with GCC 2.3. GCC 2.3 is the wave of the future, but the > > crest is not here yet. The kernel still recommends 2.95.x although > > it can be successfully compiled with the new whiz kid. -- Tony Alfrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] "I'd Rather Be Sailing" _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -> http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
