why not gcc 3.x?
d95-bli at nada.kth.se
Thu Dec 6 07:13:31 PST 2001
Simon Geard wrote:
> On Thursday 06 December 2001 21:05, Björn Lindberg wrote:
> > 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.
> Which leaves us with a choice. Either fix the existing badly written code as
> you find it, or stick with the older compiler until the developers of said
> badly written code fix it themselves. I guess it just comes down to
> preference, and whether or not you have the time or skills to fix things that
> don't work.
Exactly my point. I just wnated to emphazise that it's not so much a
question of gcc3 "maturing" or "becoming stable" as it is other code
that needs to be rewritten.
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