Jason Costomiris on Fri, 25 May 2001 09:57:18 -0400 |
On Fri, May 25, 2001 at 12:39:01AM -0400, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote: : gcc 2.96 does *not* pass regression tests to the last release of gcc : 2.95.3, which is part of the reason that the FSF recommends we not : use it. I'd be interested in seeing why it failed. If the failure is related to it blowing up on bad code constructs, all bets are off. : RedHat feels it necessary to include a separate (older) version of : gcc to compile the kernel in their operating system. Name me another : Unix-like operating system that has *ever* shipped with separate : C (etcetera) compilers for userland and kernel use. They did this once to work around a deficiency in the compiler which has now been corrected. On a RedHat 7.1 machine just last evening, I built kernel 2.4.4. No trouble at all. : The fact that gcc 2.96 does *not* work for everything is sufficient : reason not to include it. What doesn't it work for? We're still waiting for a specific example. : Till : Linux is up to the new C++ standard, it's just stupid to use a : compiler that enforces that standard. Maybe you're not aware, but Linux is not written in C++. It's C and ASM. Linux distributions, on the other hand may include components written in C++, in which case, it's up to them what their distribution provides from a standards perspective. By your own logic, RedHat should not be flogged because of including gcc 2.96. -- Jason Costomiris <>< | Technologist, geek, human. jcostom {at} jasons {dot} org | http://www.jasons.org/ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur. My account, My opinions. ______________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|