[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: State of the Woody

Marco d'Itri writes:
 > On Dec 19, "Marcelo E. Magallon" <mmagallo@debian.org> wrote:
 >  > I hope noone is seriously considering getting gcc 3.0 into woody given
 >  > the above time schedule.  gcc 3.0 is hell when it comes to C++.  It
 > What about shipping gcc 3.0 for C and a more stable release for C++?
 > We did that at egcs time.

... and we got much confusion which C compiler to use, when using g++ ...

what is more "stable" than gcc-3.0 for C++? 

- Perhaps in 2.95.x you already know the bugs.
+ libstdc++ independent from glibc.
+ standard compliant (backward headers as well).

Reply to: