Re: State of the Woody
On Tue, Dec 19, 2000 at 10:47:24PM +0100, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Marco d'Itri writes:
> > On Dec 19, "Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.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).
FYI, I can't get any current C++ applications to compile with libstdc++-v3
on ppc and sparc. How does one allow backward compatible builds?
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: