On Sat, Nov 25, 2000 at 03:26:15PM -0200, Rik van Riel wrote:
Rik,
We refuse to use it here at present. Builds from it have a lot
of problems, for some reason. Andre is looking into it more
deeply than I, but I agree with your assessment.
Jeff
> On Fri, 24 Nov 2000, Neil Brown wrote:
> > On Friday November 24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >> ... RedHat's GCC snapshot "2.96" handles this case just fine.
> > >
> > > > Now, if you can isolate the relevant part of the diff between
> > > > 2.95.2 and RH 2.96...
> > >
> > > Maybe I have to be more precise in the statement "gcc 2.95.2 is buggy".
>
> [image from FTP site not buggy]
>
> > > This is from a SuSE distribution, I forget which, not very recent.
> > > Revised summary: gcc-2.95.2-51 from SuSE is buggy.
> >
> > Ditto for gcc-2.95.2-13 from Debian (potato). It exhibits the
> > same bug. Debian applies a total of 49 patches to gcc and the
> > libraries.
>
> The gcc-2.95.2-6cl from Conectiva 6.0 is buggy too.
>
> (and the ISO images haven't even been available for
> one week yet ... *sigh*)
>
> regards,
>
> Rik
> --
> Hollywood goes for world dumbination,
> Trailer at 11.
>
> http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
