Re: Huh, gcc 2.95.3?
On Mon, Jan 01, 2001 at 07:49:55PM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 11:42:22AM +1100, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > Ack!(tm). Not shades of rh7, I hope? I know that people using sid (like
> Uh, GCC 2.95.3 CVS NOT 2.96 OR 2.97! Please be careful what you say. We
> are talking about a stable release here, not a dripping wet development
fwiw, people I also trust to know what they are doing are shipping
GCC 2.95.3 as their default C compiler _now_ ... in OpenBSD 2.8.
This discussion has happened over there, too, and also led to
the same clarification... rh7 apparently shipped some 2.96 beta.