Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

Kevan Shea biffcool at
Wed May 8 07:00:56 PDT 2002

On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 01:10:54AM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> On Tue, 7 May 2002 16:17:30 -0700 (PDT)
> Chad Simmons <polpak at> wrote:
> I wont disagree that 2.95.3 is 'broke', but we are talking degree.
> 3.x is currently (perhaps with the excpetion of c++) more broke than
> 2.95.3

How?  You keep saying that it's slower but don't link to any benchmarks
to prove it.  You keep saying you heard it's broke on lkml and the
gcc-dev list but don't produce any links to archives to prove it.

And in respect to your previous question about if it ain't broke don't
fix it.  No very few people around here go by that, like Gerard said at
the start of this thread, if we went by that we would have stopped with
the LFS-HOWTO 1.0.
Kevan Shea

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