On December 29, Collins Richey enlightened our ignorance thusly:
>
> Others will be able to help you get back to the status quo ante.
>
> Be advised, I've never heard of any good results using the gcc 3... compiler.
> I'm fairly sure that the compiler is indded broken, although you may have
> broken something else as well. Avoid gcc 3.... like the plague - you've
> already experienced its benefits (ie none).
I've used gcc 3.0.x without incident since it was released in June.
The compiler is not broken. There are some problems with certain apps
and libraries, but this has been the case with gcc for quite some
time -- such as older version of the kernel and glibc relying on bugs
in the compiler. In fact, I've heard reports of success *and* failure
building the kernel with gcc 3.0.x.
Please defined what "indded [sic] broken" means. There are more
benefits to using gcc 3.0 than you realize -- I've been living with
it for several months and, aside from known misfeatures, it is a better
product than the 2.95 series: new preprocessor, better
optimizations, more standards compliant, and so forth.
As always, YMMV.
Kurt
--
James Joyce -- an essentially private man who wished his total
indifference to public notice to be universally recognized.
-- Tom Stoppard
_______________________________________________
Linux-users mailing list
Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
