Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

Kevan Shea biffcool at
Wed May 8 08:08:58 PDT 2002

On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 04:02:18PM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> On Wed, 8 May 2002 09:52:37 -0400
> Kevan Shea <biffcool at> wrote:
> > > 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
> yes, of course. However gcc 3.x hasnt proved itself to be 'the same' or
> better yet. At least, not according to its writers, whose opinions
> apparently dont matter...

Prove it.  Post a URL.  Otherwise everything you say is rhetoric.

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