On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:44:40 -0800, Craig Dickson wrote: > > csj wrote: > > > What's the real deal on the gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.2 transition? > > I've read enough FUD I can't distinguish the > > facts. Particularly, what programs or libraries are actually > > affected? What havoc would result from compiling the kernel > > or X with 3.2 on a largely Testing system (since Testing has > > gcc-2.95 as the default compiler)? Could the g(n)urus please > > speak up? > > I haven't seen any real FUD on this (FUD implies someone trying > to scare you with half-truths or outright falsehoods), though > there have been some poorly-informed comments.
Allow me some poetic license. [...] > Things written in ordinary C, rather than C++, are not > affected, should not be broken by the transition, and need not > be rebuilt. [...] Thanks for the enlightenment. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
