Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

Chad Simmons polpak at
Tue May 7 16:17:30 PDT 2002

--- Ian Molton <spyro at> wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2002 16:01:59 -0400
> timothy bauscher <timothy at> wrote:
> > 
> > i have not seen any valid reasons *not* to upgrade
> > to 3.1. i am excited about the possibility of its
> > placement in LFS.
> <sigh>
> Doesnt anyone these days go by the old engineering adage
> 'If it aint broke, dont fix it' ?

It is 'broke' otherwise why would they be releasing a new version?
The most obvious example of gcc 2.95.3 breakage is in it's processing
of C++. We are therefore looking to move to the 'fixed' version which
is the newer release. I'm sure that the gcc developers wouldn't have 
spent all this time and energy on this new version, if the old one
wasn't 'broke' in some way.

Chad Simmons

Version 3.1
GCS/L/C/O d-(+) s++:+ a-- C+++$>++++ UBLS++++$ 
P+++(--)$ L++>+++ E--- W+>++$ N !o K? w(--) !O 
M- !V PS+ PE(++) Y+ PGP->+ t- 5 X+() R(+) tv+@ 
b++(+++) !DI+++ D G(-) e>+++$ h---() r+++ y+++

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list