On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 06:12:41 -0500, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
> Does anyone have thoughts on a Debian-wide migration towards GCC 3.2?
> (Or, for that matter, towards *anything* in the 3.x line).
The upcoming ABI change from 3.1 to 3.2 is the reason we've not switched to
3.1 as the Debian-wi
>> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We should count ourselves lucky that we don't have stable releases using
> each of the GCC 2.9x, 3.0, and 3.1 ABIs.
Does anyone have thoughts on a Debian-wide migration towards GCC 3.2?
(Or, for that matter, towards *anything* in the 3.x line).
Le Wed, Aug 14, 2002, à 10:15:17AM -0400, Michael Stone a écrit:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 10:00:35AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 08:16:46AM +0200, "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <[EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> > > "The main point of the GCC 3.2 release is to have a
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 10:00:35AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 08:16:46AM +0200, "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> > "The main point of the GCC 3.2 release is to have a relatively stable and
> > common C++ ABI for GNU/Linux and BSD usage. Un
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 10:00:35AM -0400, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 08:16:46AM +0200, "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 22:06:12 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 06:57:24AM +0200, Harald Dunkel w
On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 02:00, Daniel Burrows wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 08:16:46AM +0200, "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <[EMAIL
> PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 22:06:12 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 06:57:24AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> > > >
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 08:16:46AM +0200, "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> was heard to say:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 22:06:12 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 06:57:24AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> > > Please note that the C++ ABI has been changed with gcc 3.2.
On Tue, Aug 13, 2002 at 22:06:12 -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 06:57:24AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> > Please note that the C++ ABI has been changed with gcc 3.2.
> Again? *sigh*
"The main point of the GCC 3.2 release is to have a relatively stable and
common C++ ABI f
On Wed, Aug 14, 2002 at 06:57:24AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Please note that the C++ ABI has been changed with gcc 3.2. The
> "old" libraries compiled with g++ 3.0.x or 3.1.x can't be used
> with 3.2 anymore.
Again? *sigh* Apparently their C++ ABI stability goes about as far as my
vision.
Hi Nikita,
Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote:
Hello.
I wanted to install g++ 3.2 (instead of 3.1 that is buggy) on our server
running woody with several packages from unstable.
I noticed that g++ 3.2 depends on recent libc6. Is it safe to install libc6
from unstable now? Are libdb problems resolved?
Hello.
I wanted to install g++ 3.2 (instead of 3.1 that is buggy) on our server
running woody with several packages from unstable.
I noticed that g++ 3.2 depends on recent libc6. Is it safe to install libc6
from unstable now? Are libdb problems resolved?
11 matches
Mail list logo