Pending GCC-3.1 upgrade - do or don't

Larry Lawrence llawre_ at
Wed May 8 10:05:36 PDT 2002

Ian Molton wrote:

> On Wed, 08 May 2002 10:35:26 -0400
> Michael W Daniels <daniels at> wrote:
>> At 10:05 AM 5/8/2002 +0100, you 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.)
> Er. Im seeing code generation speedups to put it on a par with 2.95.3
> and ABI incompatability. It doesnt mention the generated code running
> faster...
> Whats the big advantage?

A big advantage would be to write programs in assembler.  I cannot fathom a 
change that would qualify as a big advantage.

It seems to me that there is some underlying fear of instablility of LFS.  
We're talking about a set of 40+ programs, all under continous development 
on top of a kernel that's probably never been stable.  And after all that, 
is still more stable as a unit than the competition.

LFS has a consistant approach to upgrades. Let the process work.

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