Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

Ian Molton spyro at
Wed May 8 02:13:08 PDT 2002

On Tue, 7 May 2002 21:59:21 -0400
Gerard Beekmans <gerard at> wrote:

> 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.

GCC CVS has performance regressions against 3.0.x

the GCC team /say/ these wont be in 3.1 but currently there is NO code
to back that up (ie. there isnt anything close to 3.1 to test)

> > 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).

Whats wrong with 'proves stable'?

I KNOW in the past we have held off upgrades (A recent version of yacc
and auto-something we held off, because it gave problems with several

The compiler is the //foundation// of the system. it should have the
LONGEST waiting period of all before acceptance.

> If we wouldn't do it, we'd still be using
> gcc- It compiled everything just fine, so why did we ever
> upgrade? does NOT compile everything fine. I've personally written code
it f*cked up.

> And who says I'm rushing?

well, what is your idea of an acceptable delay time for 3.1 inclusion
following its release ?

> > 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.
> Such as?

anything. Its a HUGE and COMPLEX piece of code.   
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