why not gcc 3.x?
d95-bli at nada.kth.se
Thu Dec 6 00:05:08 PST 2001
Ian Molton wrote:
> All the more reason to be /very/ cautious about upgrading.
> If people want to play with the latest (and often broken) compiler
> technology, they are welcome, but as it is the foundation of the whole
> system, it should be **ROCK** solid. 2.95.3 has had /far/ more of a beating
> than any 3.xx release to date.
The problem with gcc3 is not that it is "buggy" or less stable/"solid".
The problem is that badly written code may have trouble conforming to
stricter enforced standards.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-support