On Thu, 21 Jun 2001, Adi Stav wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 02:16:35PM +0300, mulix wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Jun 2001, Adi Stav wrote:
> I wonder how long it'd take for GCC 3.0 to be considered a safe C++
> compiler to ship alone for stable distributions, though.
Next version of redhat ?
Rawhide (Redhat's experimental distro) still has gcc-2.96-85
>
> > re compiling the kernel with gcc-3.0: you can do it, but it's not
> > recommended. even if the compilation succeeds (i dont think it does, at
> > the moment, some problem with builtin functions) there is a whole slew
> > of arcane magic and black wizardry that can go wrong, if the compiler
> > does something differently than what it used to do. you might get a
> > kernel that runs, but silently trashes your data. in other words, try
> > it, but if it breaks, you get to keep both pieces...
>
> Considering that the GCC 3.0 i386 backend was rewritten, I am genuinely
> surprised to hear that it compiled at all.
>
> Again, I'm wondering how long it'd take for GCC 3.0 to be considered
> safe for the kernel. I'll place my conservative bet of 18 months, at
> least.
How much is 3.0 different from 2.96 ?
Doesn't the Rawhide kernel currently gets built with 2.96?
--
Tzafrir Cohen
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
