Re: IA-64: g77-3.0 vs. -2.96
John R. Daily writes:
> I sent this to the debian-ia64 list recently and received no
> input. Given the apparent lack of concern about making such a
> change, I'd like to inquire on this list whether such a change
> would be technically and politically feasible pre-woody.
> Matthias, I understand that your input is particularly crucial in
> this matter. Any thoughts?
I want leave the final decision to Randolph Tausq, which does (?) the
ia64 parts in gcc.
> From: "John R. Daily" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: g77-3.0 vs. -2.96
> Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2001 16:42:48 -0500
> Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
> During the porting process, I have come across at least two
> packages, one of them significant, that caused internal compiler
> errors with g77-2.96. One was lapack-dev, the other is r-base,
> which I'm still working on. Both compile fine with g77-3.0.
> Since the motivation for using 2.96 instead of 3.0 pertains more
> to C and C++, and since bug fixes for 2.96 are going to be
> difficult to come by, what would people think about changing the
> default to 3.0 for g77 on ia64?
> - --
> John R. Daily Progeny Linux Systems
> Consultant email@example.com
> Master of the ephemeral epiphany
> ------- End of Forwarded Message
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com