Re: State of gcc 2.95 use in Debian unstable
Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> In linux.debian.devel, you 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?
> > Also, people have some code (old completed internal projects, etc), which
> > probably would never be ported to newer C++ standards (it's plainly too big
> > job), but which are still useful to keep working - e.g. for
> > demonstration/education/similar purposes.
> > I have to deal with the both above situations. And I believe I'm far not
> > alone here. So there is user benefit from keeping gcc 2.95 in usable state.
> > Not fixing internal compiler bugs - user who faces old compiler's failure
> > to build code should seriously consider switching to newer versions - but
> > just keeping packages installable and usable.
> I agree. Plus, compilation of C code with 2.95 is typically twice as fast
> as 4.0. While 2.95 may be too buggy wrt C++, it's still useful for C.
I wouldn't recommend to compile new code with 2.95 just because it is
faster. It doesn't do standard C and misses many broken constructs which
are caught by newer compilers.
It may still have some use for regression tests, and for old code
without a prospect of getting updated. I don't know how relevant
those cases are for Debian.