Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

Kevan Shea biffcool at zombieworld.com
Wed May 8 06:52:37 PDT 2002


On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 10:05:56AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2002 21:51:22 -0400
> Gerard Beekmans <gerard at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> 
> > Depends on what packages you are looking at I suppose. With some
> > packages I notice no performance increase or decrease between the two
> > GCC versions we're discussing. So if not faster than the same isn't so
> > bad either.
> 
> If not faster, why upgrade? (noone has answered this yet, with the
> (questionable) excpetion of C++ support which unless you use KDE is only
> a VERY small fraction of packages. besides KDE compiles fine on 2.95.3.)

If 3.x is "the same" as 2.95.x under almost all circumstances, and does
C++ BETTER, and is more up to date, then we'd upgrade for those exact
reasons

-- 
Kevan Shea

"Industrious people create industry.
Lazy people create civilization."
--Hideo Nakamura
-- 
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