Richard Hebert a écrit : > Since this 2.96 compiler is buggy and it's use
I think there has been a lot of FUD (a polite way to say lies) on this subject. Some people didn't like RedHat forking gcc and began telling unofficial <=> buggy (true for sept 2000 gcc 2.96 but the one in 7.2 has had an additional year of bugfixes) and official <=> bug-free (certainly not true in gcc 3.0.0 (aka June gcc 3.0) who was worse than sept 2000 gcc 2.96. Dont know for gcc 3.0.1. > " discouraged " for doing compilation of many applications > ( the example given is NOT the only app that signals and requires > a different compiler ) is there a counterindication to use 3.0 tools instead > of the 2.96 ? Or is the use of 2.95 a safer bet ? > I managed to get gcc 2.95.2 generate wrong code, now it is 2.95.3 and this is probably safer since its code base has been around for a longer time than gcc 2.96. But one thing is sure: gcc 2.96 generates faster code (my own benchmarks) For 3.0 I am sceptical: when RH forked gcc it want into bug hunting mode while gcc people continued development. It also has seen far less deployments than gcc 2.96 (this uncovers bugs)so logically it has more bugs than the gcc 2.96 shipped in 7.2 > > Thanks > > richard > > _________________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > Seawolf-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/seawolf-list -- Jean Francois Martinez The Independence project: because Linux should be for everyone http://independence.seul.org _______________________________________________ Seawolf-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/seawolf-list
