Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-08 Thread Jamie Lokier
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: > >Hey, colour ls is _useful_! > Use white background Xterm. Come again? Ugh! > One of the biggest mistakes RH ever did was happily jumping off _that_ > cliff to follow SuSE. Colour ls predates both Red Hat and SuSE. -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-08 Thread Jamie Lokier
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote: Hey, colour ls is _useful_! Use white background Xterm. Come again? Ugh! One of the biggest mistakes RH ever did was happily jumping off _that_ cliff to follow SuSE. Colour ls predates both Red Hat and SuSE. -- Jamie - To unsubscribe from this list: send

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-07 Thread Kim Shepherd
ect: Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95? > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes: > > >Alexander Viro wrote: > >> ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls. > > >Hey, colour ls is _useful_! > > Use white background Xter

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-07 Thread Henning P. Schmiedehausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes: >Alexander Viro wrote: >> ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls. >Hey, colour ls is _useful_! Use white background Xterm. Come again? First thing I do on _all_ RH installations is "rm /etc/profile.d/colorls*" One of the biggest

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-07 Thread Henning P. Schmiedehausen
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes: Alexander Viro wrote: ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls. Hey, colour ls is _useful_! Use white background Xterm. Come again? First thing I do on _all_ RH installations is "rm /etc/profile.d/colorls*" One of the biggest

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-07 Thread Kim Shepherd
does everyone hate gcc 2.95? [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes: Alexander Viro wrote: ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls. Hey, colour ls is _useful_! Use white background Xterm. Come again? First thing I do on _all_ RH installations i

RE: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-06 Thread Purtell, Andrew
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Is this a problem where the code produced by 2.95 was non-optimal in some significant way or simply incorrect, or is it really just a subjective "takes to long to compile XXX" thing? Andrew Purtell NAI Labs at Network Associates, Inc.

RE: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-06 Thread Purtell, Andrew
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Is this a problem where the code produced by 2.95 was non-optimal in some significant way or simply incorrect, or is it really just a subjective "takes to long to compile XXX" thing? Andrew Purtell NAI Labs at Network Associates, Inc.

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-05 Thread Jamie Lokier
Alexander Viro wrote: > ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls. Hey, colour ls is _useful_! > Or --ignore-fail-on-non-empty as rmdir option. Or "let's replace config > files with directories full of one-liners since packagers can't be arsed > to learn sed(1)" religion.

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-05 Thread Jamie Lokier
Alexander Viro wrote: ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls. Hey, colour ls is _useful_! Or --ignore-fail-on-non-empty as rmdir option. Or "let's replace config files with directories full of one-liners since packagers can't be arsed to learn sed(1)" religion.

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-04 Thread Horst von Brand
"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been > compiling kern els successfully (read: not one single (ever) error in > compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the big > deal? GCC has traditionally been

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-04 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:12:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > No, better yet, > what is a good version to use when porting to a new processor (actually > an old processor)? I've pulled the source to gcc (2.95.2) and binutils > (2.10) in prep for a port to a new/old machine. If these

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-04 Thread Michael Meding
Hi there, > I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for > my purposes, Hm, have not checked that. Did you do benchmarks here ? at least, the resulting code is not any faster on > any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha. Hm, quick check of

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-04 Thread doctor
Larry McVoy said ... > On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote: > > What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been > > compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error > > in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now.

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-04 Thread doctor
Larry McVoy said ... On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote: What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-04 Thread Michael Meding
Hi there, I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for my purposes, Hm, have not checked that. Did you do benchmarks here ? at least, the resulting code is not any faster on any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha. Hm, quick check of dgemm

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-04 Thread Jakub Jelinek
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:12:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, better yet, what is a good version to use when porting to a new processor (actually an old processor)? I've pulled the source to gcc (2.95.2) and binutils (2.10) in prep for a port to a new/old machine. If these versions

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-04 Thread Horst von Brand
"John Anthony Kazos Jr." [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been compiling kern els successfully (read: not one single (ever) error in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the big deal? GCC has traditionally been a

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-03 Thread Alexander Viro
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Larry McVoy wrote: > hand picked tests. No faster. Just compiles slower. Add to that > some distributions BRAINDEAD default of havving colorgcc be the default > compiler (can you say fork perl to fork gcc? Can you say STUPID?), and ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-03 Thread Larry McVoy
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote: > What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been > compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error > in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the > big deal? [Fix

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-03 Thread Larry McVoy
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote: What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the big deal? [Fix your

Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?

2000-10-03 Thread Alexander Viro
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Larry McVoy wrote: hand picked tests. No faster. Just compiles slower. Add to that some distributions BRAINDEAD default of havving colorgcc be the default compiler (can you say fork perl to fork gcc? Can you say STUPID?), and ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing