> > gcc 2.96 is not a real release, more of a redhat branch off the > 3.0 dev tree > > that gnu disavows. There are notes somewhere about this but I couldn't > > quickly find the link. > > Which is understandable from their point of view, keeping the user base > at a certain level to gain reliable input. On the other hand back when > Redhat started using gcc 2.96, it was the only compiler that was > actually usable on most no-x86 platforms. (This does not apply for the > first release they packed with their distribution, but anything later > proved to be worlds better than gcc 2.95, i.e. on Alpha, Sparc, ... > gcc 2.96 was also the first compiler to support Itanium) >
Thanks for the explanation. I think I got the first release of 2.96. Didn't work very well and caused quite a ruckus on the net. I've since stuck with debian without problems, but I only compile for x86. -Steve _______________________________________________ Linuxbios mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.clustermatic.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxbios
