|
|
Blitz Devel : |
From: Frank Schimmel (schimmel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-14 04:05:51
>> Marc Mutz <mutz_at_[hidden]> writes:
> On Friday 11 October 2002 18:14, John W. Eaton wrote:
>> Why? I think it might be that 2.96 is what is broken. Please read
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html
> Mandrake based their whole 8.x series (three releases) on gcc 2.96. So
> it can't be the worst compiler out there. I definitely agree that every
> gcc release from 2.95.x onwards needs to be supported for quite some
> time to come.
Yes, every _RELEASE_.
Those can be found at `http://gcc.gnu.org/releases.html'.
No gcc 2.96 there!
As explained in the page John referenced, "GCC 2.96 is not a formal
GCC release nor will there ever be such a release. Rather, GCC 2.96
has been the code-name for our development branch that will
eventually become GCC 3.0."
Gcc 3.x is here. Since 18 June, 2001. That's more than a year ago. I
see absolutely no reason, why a dated BETA VERSION of that compiler
should be supported. Especially when it comes to C++, an update to
gcc 3 is more than just useful...
My EUR 0.02
-Frank Schimmel
> BTW: I think in hindsight it was a good idea of RedHat to include this
> version in their distribution. It has drawn a lot of attention to the
> gcc 3.0 branch.
Other distros used ist too, and so did I. And successfully so over
quite a period of time. Until 3.0 was out, and then I trashed it.
_______________________________________________
Blitz-dev mailing list
Blitz-dev_at_[hidden]
http://www.oonumerics.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/blitz-dev