[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >
> > > hi,
> > > first of all I don't know the overall quality of 7.0 since I'm just come
> > > back from my vacation, but I read many mails and news about in which
> > > people are criticize red hat why they include gcc 2.96 in 7.0.
> >
> > gcc 2.96 is a development version. Its authors say it's not ready for release.
> >
>
> gcc 2.96 is a snapshot plus heavy patches. You could (or could not)
> consider that it is alike a production kernel where the code freeze
> has taken place before the official one by Linus. Not necessarily
> unstable but due to the fact this gcc is not official it has not got
> the same kind of post-release testing by users that an official gcc
> would have got. It only has got in house testing. This problem (of
> relative lack of testing) could have lightened if RH had anoounced in
> advance that this gcc would be the "next one". Given that it is not
> unusual that RedHat rolls back certain features of its betas I for one
> didn't pay much attention to the gcc in pinstripe and I didn't try to
> push it too hard.
>
> Also gcc 2.96 at the testsuite are far better than those of gcc 2.95.
> This could suggest that it is much better than people suggest. You
> could however wait a bit before using it for important things until
> other people have really tried it.
I've used 2.96 at least for 3 mounts from rawhide and use it with stdc++-v3
and it's much better then the earlier. may be not so many paople use
it but it's time to test it by more people. when glibc comes and libc5
go away then there is just a few 'brave' people who use it and it
was not a realy widely tested. for developers it's better, for users
it's better if they don't have to know about it and they don't bother
with it.
does anybody have any real example why 2.96 is worse the 2.95 ?
anyway 2.95 would be the worst choice, since it's worse some c++ part
than egcs.
ps. I read gcc's statement about it and I agree with them since they
have to portect their 'product' from critic, and 2.96 is not their
'product'. and I've fully respect for them their great product.
but from rh point of view there is many 'good' c++ compiler on
windows, even ms's vc++ is better conforming to the standard c++
then the earlier gcc releases. until linux don't have a good c++
compiler windows c++ programmer can't turn to linux. there is a kai
and will a borland c++ compiler for linux but more linux user would
like to use gcc.
-- Levente
"The only thing worse than not knowing the truth is
ruining the bliss of ignorance."
_______________________________________________
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
