Joe Buck wrote:
No, one does not have to adapt gradually. It is no harder to switch from
2.95 to 4.1.2 than it is to switch from 2.95 to 3.3. Either way, you'll
have to get out a C++ book, learn C++, and recode your code in actual C++.
There will be some cases where going to 3.3 will require f
> if not for the real compiler as such, what advantages would i get on
> using newer glibc, libstdc++ ?? would these features be tied to
> some kernel version linux-2.4 vs 2.6 ( something like thread
> support).
Let's step back a bit.
If you look at this page:
http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html
gt;
To: Joe Buck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Paul Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
gcc@gcc.gnu.org; Dave Korn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ganesh subramonian <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 2, 2007 11:32:43 AM
Subject: Re: how to convince some
On Apr 1, 2007, at 10:42 PM, Joe Buck wrote:
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 02:20:10PM +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul
Brook:
If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already
obsolete release
(3.3) seems a strange choice. At
> > Many of the improvements in c++ code generation were as a result of
> > tree-ssa, you only get with 4.x.
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 01:19:24PM +0100, Dave Korn wrote:
> It is however a bigger step change, and a correspondingly bigger risk.
> There are arguments in favour of not running with th
On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 at 02:20:10PM +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote:
>
> Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul Brook:
>
> >If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already
> >obsolete release
> >(3.3) seems a strange choice. At this point I'd recommend skipping 3.x
Richard Guenther wrote:
At least you'd have the chance that reported bugs may eventually get
fixed - with a 3.x (or even 4.0.x) release there's no chance of that unless
you are willing to pay (and find) someone to do it.
Which of course is one possibility, it is not always clear that updating
Ganesh wrote:
I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross
compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c++
and makes extensive use of the stl libraries. We would not be changing
our operating system or processor architecture (so portability is not
a ve
On 4/1/07, Marcin Dalecki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul Brook:
> If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already
> obsolete release
> (3.3) seems a strange choice. At this point I'd recommend skipping 3.x
> altogether and go
Wiadomość napisana w dniu 2007-04-01, o godz13:58, przez Paul Brook:
If you're already switching compilers, moving to an already
obsolete release
(3.3) seems a strange choice. At this point I'd recommend skipping 3.x
altogether and going straight to gcc4.1/4.2.
Many of the improvements in c+
On 01 April 2007 12:59, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Sunday 01 April 2007 12:01, Dave Korn wrote:
>> On 01 April 2007 07:08, ganesh subramonian wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross
>>> compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c+
On Sunday 01 April 2007 12:01, Dave Korn wrote:
> On 01 April 2007 07:08, ganesh subramonian wrote:
> > Hi
> > I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross
> > compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c++
> > and makes extensive use of the stl libr
On 01 April 2007 07:08, ganesh subramonian wrote:
> Hi
> I work in a company where we have been using gcc-2.95.4 (based cross
> compiler) for compiling our code. Most of the code is written in c++
> and makes extensive use of the stl libraries. We would not be changing
> our operating system o
13 matches
Mail list logo
