Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't
gerard at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue May 7 18:59:21 PDT 2002
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 10:43:16PM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> Thats a straw-man argument, unless you are proposing LFS will use CVS
> versions of GCC. (oh god, please no!)
Duh. All I'm saying is don't use gcc-3.0.4 to base anything, because
gcc-3.0.4's performance against gcc-cvs is not the same. We're talking
about a gcc-3.1 upgrade here, so let's base our findings on the thing
closest resembling to gcc-3.1 which is current CVS. We'll do of course more
testing when it's actually released. I'm not going to put gcc-3.1 in the
book the hour it's released. I've never ever done that with any software
used in the book. Before any upgrade is done, a full system is built, and
some regression tests are done.
> Why the rush to have a bigger version number?!
Because we always update the book when a new package is released (and it
proves installable). If we wouldn't do it, we'd still be using gcc-18.104.22.168
It compiled everything just fine, so why did we ever upgrade?
And who says I'm rushing?
> LFS has also been successfully built using experimental compiler Y, and
I don't consider gcc-3 experimental. Nor do I see anythign on the GCC
website that says that gcc-3 is not supposed to be used unless you are very
brave and want to try out experimental compiler code.
> some people have found it to be stable, but this is a relatively
> untrodden path, and not recommended unless you are skilled in debugging
> the subtle build problems that may arise.
> why? do you not believe its authors? Would you trust the latest product
I have already answered that question and explained my rationale in full
detail. I'm not going to rehash it again. It is not a matter of not
believing the authors at all.
-*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
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