Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id <S282231AbRKWUeo>; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:34:44 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org
	id <S282233AbRKWUee>; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:34:34 -0500
Received: from mx2out.umbc.edu ([130.85.253.52]:48892 "EHLO mx2out.umbc.edu")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id <S282231AbRKWUeY>;
	Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:34:24 -0500
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 15:34:11 -0500
From: John Jasen <jjasen1@umbc.edu>
X-X-Sender: <jjasen1@irix2.gl.umbc.edu>
To: J Sloan <jjs@pobox.com>
cc: <lgb@lgb.hu>, Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Which gcc version?
In-Reply-To: <3BFEA873.46325BEB@pobox.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SGI.4.31L.02.0111231532000.13038141-100000@irix2.gl.umbc.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Fri, 23 Nov 2001, J Sloan wrote:

> This is all silly FUD - time for the pointer again -
>
> http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html

Redhat apologists are given the due they deserve.

Their first cut at a released 2.96 should never have made it out of the
labs alive, and for that matter, neither should have 7.0.

That said, the versions in 7.1, and the patches available have done
reasonably well for everything that I've tried to compile (kernels
included).

What are they going to do about gcc 3.0.x? It'll be amusing to watch.

--
-- John E. Jasen (jjasen1@umbc.edu)
-- In theory, theory and practise are the same. In practise, they aren't.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/