On Mon, Dec 25, 2000 at 10:07:56PM -0700, Frank Jacobberger wrote:
: I was just trying to make a new 2.4.0 test13-pre4 kernel and noticed an
: indordinate amount of warnings.. A friend told me to switch back to
: gcc 2.95.2 because it is more stable..
Oh, "a friend". If I had a nickel for every time I saw that.... I bet
your friend writes bad C++ code and doesn't like that 2.96 has proper
C++ support. :-)
In fact, 2.95.2 is less stable, more buggy and all around, not good for
anything (IMHO) other than C code. The C++ support is terrible.
: Why is RH going with a NON release gcc?? Why do we need to run
: 2.91.? of kgcc to compile new kernels...
kgcc == egcs 1.1.2, what you've been using for a while in previous redhat
releases. The fact of the matter is that egcs and gcc 2.7.2.3 are the
only "reasonable" choices for kernel compilations.
: Why all this madness... why not stick to standards?
Um, they ARE actually. 2.96 adheres to standards much more closely than
2.95.2 does.
--
Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human.
jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
