In linux.debian.devel, you wrote:
>> The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
>> terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
>> this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued
>> maintenance of gcc 2.95?
[..]
> Also, people have some code (old completed internal projects, etc), which
> probably would never be ported to newer C++ standards (it's plainly too big
> job), but which are still useful to keep working - e.g. for
> demonstration/education/similar purposes.
>
> I have to deal with the both above situations. And I believe I'm far not
> alone here. So there is user benefit from keeping gcc 2.95 in usable state.
> Not fixing internal compiler bugs - user who faces old compiler's failure
> to build code should seriously consider switching to newer versions - but
> just keeping packages installable and usable.
I agree. Plus, compilation of C code with 2.95 is typically twice as fast
as 4.0. While 2.95 may be too buggy wrt C++, it's still useful for C.
Cheers,
Moritz
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
