Just a thought that popped into my head

Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee highos at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue May 7 09:40:07 PDT 2002


Yo,

On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 05:18:25PM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> In any case, what are the GOOD REASONS to jump to an experimental unstable compiler?

Hrm.  If i go to freshmeat and check the gcc entry, there is no mention
of 2.95.x anymore.  It marks the default branch as being 3.0.4
presently.

If i head over to gcc's homepage (http://gcc.gnu.org/) and look at the
current release, it marks it as 3.0.4.  The active branch being 3.1 and
the development brach being 3.2.

Ok, so perhaps i'm missing something here.  The GCC Team is clearly not
marking, at least _publicly_ at gcc3 is "experimental" or "unstable",
unless you are an actually GCC Developer and have some insiders
information we aren't aware of....

> so far, *slightly* improved C++ support is the only reason I have seen, which doesnt cut it compared to numerous performance regressions and compile failures, as far as I am concerned.

Uh.. *blinks*  Have you read any of the recent e-mails from any of us?

Most of us do not care what the GCC or the Kernel developers claim as
being unstable or unusable for production use.  Considering we have
proved them wrong in the past, multiple times.

Anyways.  The simple fact is, Gerard is running gcc3 fine.  I'm about to
start building a new lfs with it.  Several other regulars are running
gcc3 only for a while now without problems.  Ok, so gcc3 isn't the best
compiler, but.. your trying to throw apple's and orange's at us here.

-- 
Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee  ( highos at linuxfromscratch dot org )
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list