On Thu, 2005-11-10 at 08:17 +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > On 11/10/05, Marc Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:08:22PM +0200, Tshepang Lekhonkhobe wrote: > > > I'm curious why gcc-2.95 or even gcc-3.3 is still in the archives? Is > > > there a mistrust for newer stuff or something related to stability as > > > is the case with 2.4 and 2.6 kernels? Thanks... > > > > What's the reason for your question? Is there a reason why these compilers > > should not be available? Nothing forces you to use them, if you do not > > want to. > > I thought that newer compilers ought to better than the older ones
The 3.x & 4.0.x series sometimes build bigger and slower binaries. And definitely compile things slower. However, they have many more features (C99, AMD64, much better C++ support, etc, etc, etc). > (latest and greatest); I wanted to know if these older compilers are > widely used and therefore people having mistrust for newer stuff; I > assumed all packages in debian had to be recompiled with either > version 4.0 or 3.4. I don't dislike these compilers and want to know They are. Depending on the branch, of course. > from those with experience (which I lack) what's their views. > Thanks... > > Myself, as long as the recommended kernel compiler continues to be 2.95, it > > will have a place on my box. > > I didn't know this... > -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. "All machines, no matter how complex, are considered to be based on 6 simple elements: the lever, the pulley, the wheel and axle, the screw, the wedge and the inclined plane." Marilyn Vos Savant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
