Re: gcc-2.95 to -3.2 transition
On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 09:44:40 -0800,
Craig Dickson wrote:
>
> csj wrote:
>
> > What's the real deal on the gcc-2.95 to gcc-3.2 transition?
> > I've read enough FUD I can't distinguish the
> > facts. Particularly, what programs or libraries are actually
> > affected? What havoc would result from compiling the kernel
> > or X with 3.2 on a largely Testing system (since Testing has
> > gcc-2.95 as the default compiler)? Could the g(n)urus please
> > speak up?
>
> I haven't seen any real FUD on this (FUD implies someone trying
> to scare you with half-truths or outright falsehoods), though
> there have been some poorly-informed comments.
Allow me some poetic license.
[...]
> Things written in ordinary C, rather than C++, are not
> affected, should not be broken by the transition, and need not
> be rebuilt.
[...]
Thanks for the enlightenment.
Reply to: