Am 11.04.2013 14:34, schrieb Dave Korn:
On 11/04/2013 13:19, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
On 2013-04-11 01:02, Dave Korn wrote:
Yep, sure. *sigh*, I'm sure we'll suddenly find out that someone was using
it and wants to know where it's gone. (I suppose if that happens I could
always consider rolling a gcc3 package with all -3 suffixed executables.)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If you really want to stick to an old
gcc, make sure it's not the default. Call it gcc-3 or legacy-gcc, but
let's get it out of the way of the most recent version.
Yes, that's what I meant to imply by the wording. Different name + suffixed
executables = out of the way.
Also, I don't plan on doing it unless there's significant demand.
I would appreciate to keep it as gcc-3. The reason is quite peculiar;
gcc-4 changed the order of variables in the stack frame of a function
call, which led to one very specific interworking malfunction (between
mintty and mined) which in turn unveiled a very subtle bug. This is
material for very interesting debugging exercises for students... Not
sure whether it's significant but the changed variable order might in
fact affect other software as well.
------
Thomas
