On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, Duncan Simpson wrote:
> >
> > Are you serious? GCC-2.96 is unofficial crap!
> >
>
> ... and the current version number the mainline gcc sources claim to be is
> 3,1. I use 3.1 regularly and have the CVS version of gcc 2.95.x for cases when
> gcc 3.x dumps core. gcc 2.96 sounds like a way of having mainline gcc with
> some fixed bugs unfixxed in your version, and reportedly binary compatibility
> problems. Stuff compiled with a mixture of gcc 3.x and gcc 2.95.x seems to
> work fine for me...
3.1 != 3.0. You should be testing with the 3.0 branch. If that ICEs, it is imperative
you report the bug (after checking for dupes of course), especially if it's a 2.95
regression.
2.96-82 and higher have behaved OK for me, but there is no (simple) way to detect
the patch revision, so we must tar all 2.96's with the same brush because ...
> I guess an update will appear fairly soon anyway as an official release of gcc
> 3.0 is reportedly scheduled for the near future. Hopefully RH et al will put
> out a gcc update shortly after that release appears.
... RH's unofficial solution to RH7.0 gcc problems is to use the supplied egcs 1.1.2 :(
john
--
"I personally think Windows NT will be the mainstream operating system within a few
years."
"My belief: Linux will never go mainstream."
"I've always said that Linux could become a serious challenger to Microsoft's Windows
NT."
- Jesse Burst
