Just a thought that popped into my head

Marc Heerdink marc at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue May 7 10:38:03 PDT 2002


Op di 07-05-2002, om 18:43 schreef Ian Molton:
> On Tue, 7 May 2002 09:10:29 -0700
> Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee <highos at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> 
> > > Um. it was 2.96 that people were screaming about, and we DIDNT use it.
> > 
> > No, there was some screaming about the usage of 2.95.3 wayyyyyyyy back,
> > long before 2.96 was even heard of.
> 
> things change. that was probably back in the 2.91 days or such.

Nope that was when gcc 2.95.3 was just released and everyone was still
using 2.95.2 (and the kernel team still recommended egcs 1.1.2 to build
the kernel with). Currently, the recommended compiler is 2.95.3. Things
change...

> the kernel and gcc changed, they co-operated better, 2.95.3 became the standard.
> 
> I am sure 3.x will mature sometime in the not too distant future, BUT now is not the time. IMO.

I think the compiler is mature enough, but not all software is. There
has to be a point though where we say "all major packages compile with
the new compiler now, so let's switch". Older packages that don't work
with the new compiler need fixing, or should be left alone.

I vote for egcs 1.1.2 and the Intel C++ compiler.









j/k

I think gcc 3.1 should go into the book the day it's released, until
then use gcc 2.95.3.

-- 
         (__)
         (oo)
   /------\/
  / |    ||         ..."Have you mooed today?"...
 *  /\---/\   Marc Heerdink <marc at linuxfromscratch.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