Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't
jorgp at bartnet.net
Wed May 8 08:59:55 PDT 2002
On Wednesday 08 May 2002 10:15 am, you wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 04:03:59PM +0100, Ian Molton wrote:
> > but slightly better C++ isnt a reason to move the entire base distro
> > over to an experimental C compiler.
> Can you point me to an URL on gcc.gnu.org or their mailinglist archives
> that tell me that gcc-3 is experimental and shouldn't be used? I honestly
> did try to find such emails to back it up (if it's indeed labelled
> experimantal I will be more hesitant to add it to the book. A long standing
> policy is not to include beta/experimantal software).
> Gerard Beekmans
> -*- If Linux doesn't have the solution, you have the wrong problem -*-
If you look in gcc/gcc/version.c I think the head is labeled experimental and
3.1 branch is labeled pre-release.. I really do not see the argument about
it, look at the current distros, debian sid and upcoming 3.0 is using a
pre-release of 2.95.4, mandrake and redhat used the unreleased unstable 2.96
compiler, but both are switching to gcc 3.1 as system compiler.
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