Re: 3.2 transition
I have used gcc 3.2 for some time, in a Mandrake 9.0 Linux box.
The speed improvement is amazing, however, I had a problem with
gdb, that does not works will with this gcc version. In fact, you can't
print local variables, for example.
So, I'm very happy with Debian and the gcc 2.95 version by now.
Kind Regards
Haroldo Gambini Santos
On Sun, 15 Dec 2002 23:16:41 +0000
"Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <gilbertd@treblig.org> wrote:
> * Daniel Jacobowitz (dan@debian.org) wrote:
> > Reference: http://people.debian.org/~rmurray/c++transition.html, which seems
> > to be the latest copy.
> >
> > My understanding is that GCC 3.2 now works on all architectures. That means
> > we're now past the last big blocker waiting for the transition. Does anyone
> > know of anything else holding us up, besides someone to manage the process?
> >
> > If not, it sounds like it's time to begin.
>
> I wonder how well tested it is on all architectures? I'd worry about
> things like exception handling and threading being fully tested on all
> architectures.
>
> There still seem to be a lot of kernel people who don't trust 3.2; now
> whether that is a kernel issue or a gcc issue is very difficult to tell
> - my personal guess is that it is a bit of both. Definitly 2.95.x is
> still the recommended kernel compiler for most architectures - a pity
> given the improvements 3.2.x has made in many places.
>
> Dave
> ---------------- Have a happy GNU millennium! ----------------------
> / Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux on Alpha,68K| Happy \
> \ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | MIPS,x86,ARM,SPARC,PPC & HPPA | In Hex /
> \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-gcc-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>
>
> Esta mensagem foi verificada pelo E-mail Protegido Terra.
> Scan engine: VirusScan / Atualizado em 11/12/2002 / Vers_o: 1.3.13
> Proteja o seu e-mail Terra: http://www.emailprotegido.terra.com.br/
>
Reply to: