Re: C++ compiler situation: draft documentation (feedback appreciated)
On Tue, May 19, 1998 at 11:12:34AM +0200, Michael Meskes wrote:
> gcc-2.8.1 isn't an upgrade from 2.7.2.3??????
Not in the sense of "does everything 2.7.2.3 does and more".
> > Why we don't replace gcc 2.7.2.x packages with 2.8.1 ones: like egcs,
> > gcc 2.8.1 cannot be used to compile working 2.0.x kernels.
>
> I know about this egcs problem. This is exactly why I don't switch to
> egcs. But I do use gcc-2.8.1 (the experimental version) for quite some
> time now and have yet to experience this kind of problem.
I have not tried to reproduce the problem with 2.8.1 . However, there are
numerous usenet reports indicating this problem exists with both egcs and
2.8.1 (do a dejanews search for `ioport.c' or a power search on gnu.* for
(optimisation OR optimization) AND kernel ).
Even disregarding this problem, there's Alan Cox's warning against using
anything bug 2.7.2.{1,3} for 2.0.x compiles:
http://www.eklektix.com/lwn/980430/a/ac-gcc.html
It looks likely that hamm will be released before the next series of stable
kernels (which is developed to work with gcc 2.8.1 and egcs); when that
series is there, it would be useful to upgrade to the gcc 2.8.1 packages.
Greetings,
Ray
--
PATRIOTISM A great British writer once said that if he had to choose
between betraying his country and betraying a friend he hoped he would
have the decency to betray his country.
- The Hipcrime Vocab by Chad C. Mulligan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: