Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable
Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:30:00PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99
> > terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where
> > this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued
> > maintenance of gcc 2.95?
> It was relatively common to find C++ code that wouldn't build with the
> new C++ front end in GCC 3.0.
Is there one left today? (Does this mean it is dead upstream?)