Re: State of the Woody
Marco d'Itri writes:
> On Dec 19, "Marcelo E. Magallon" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I hope noone is seriously considering getting gcc 3.0 into woody given
> > the above time schedule. gcc 3.0 is hell when it comes to C++. It
> What about shipping gcc 3.0 for C and a more stable release for C++?
> We did that at egcs time.
... and we got much confusion which C compiler to use, when using g++ ...
what is more "stable" than gcc-3.0 for C++?
- Perhaps in 2.95.x you already know the bugs.
+ libstdc++ independent from glibc.
+ standard compliant (backward headers as well).