Robert Dege <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Actually, RedHat has modified the gcc 3.03 released to suit their own > > > needs, and has dubbed it 3.1. > > > > This is false. There is no gcc 3.1 yet, and no Red Hat modified 3.0.3 > > Try me. There are gcc-3.1 from Redhat, just not released in a > distro.
That's development packages, and is not a modified 3.0.3. It 3.1 snapshots. So "RedHat has modified the gcc 3.03 released to suit their own needs, and has dubbed it 3.1." is not correct at all. > > Bad advise, as 2.96RH has fewer bugs, better C++ conformance, better > > code generation overall and is compatible with Red Hat Linux 7.1. Gcc > > 2.95 isn't. > > Although, this is your opinion, I would like to point you out to what > GNU has to say about this: > > http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html > > "Please note that both GCC 2.96 and 2.97 are development versions; we do > not recommend using them for production purposes. Binaries built using > any version of GCC 2.96 or 2.97 will not be portable to systems based on > one of our regular releases." 2.96RH is the best compiler currently available. 2.95.x sucked badly (bugwise, performancewise, and it didn't support platforms we needed. It's better than it was, but not as good as 2.96RH). 2.96RH is a mature, well tested and well supported compiler. You noted yourself that 3.0.3 wasn't ready yet. Read http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html > I'm running RedHat7.1. I tried to compile MPlayer on my box, but it > wouldn't compile. The FAQ's stated that the gcc-2.96 was to blame. Bug in mplayer, read http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html for more details. > I upgraded to gcc-3.1 as per the rawhide distros, but I still couldn't > compile the program. There's bugs in the mplayer source which breaks on newer compilers. Complain to the mplayer kiddies, not the compiler coders. > I understand the desire to keep everything RedHat savve as per rpms are > concerned. That's obviously the preferred method for those that are > still green behind the gills with Linux. No, for anyone. > But to state that it's bad advise is wrong. Redhat is using > developmental code & releasing, assuming that'll work flawlessly. Your assumptions are wrong. It was branched some time before release, stabilized, tested, fixed, QAed. This has been since a good time before RHL 7, and has resulted in the best gcc-based compiler you can find. It's probably also the most widely deployed version, given that it is the standard compiler for Red Hat Linux and Mandrake. > Dare I recall the whole 7.0 release that couldn't compile a kernel from > source? ;) The kernel in RHL 7 was compiled with egcs. This was a bug in the 2.2 kernel code, and has since been fixed. 2.4 has always been compiled with gcc 2.96RH. Note that egcs has quite a few bugs, but its interactions were known and worked around -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
