[rescue] Re: Being jobless
alaric at caerllewys.net
Wed Jul 30 10:53:47 CDT 2003
On Wed, Jul 30, 2003 at 11:30:41AM -0400, Kevin Loch wrote:
> Jonathan C. Patschke wrote:
> >On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, Peter Corlett wrote:
> >>gcc-2.95 is a Red Hat hacked version that doesn't even generate working
> >>on i386. It should be shot on sight.
> >You mean "2.96". I've used 2.95 on a number of different platforms,
> >none of which were running DeadRat.
> I've probably got more 2.95.2 installs than anywhere else. I
> haven't run into a compiler related problem yet. I am
> migrating everything to 3.x though.
I thought 2.95.3 was more common than 2.95.2.
But yeah, I've been using 3.0 or 3.1 on all my boxen for a long time,
and have most of them on 3.2.2 or 3.3 now with excellent results.
And as for the whole gcc-2.96 thing .... We told'em not to do it. It
was an internal development snapshot that was never intended to be
released, that we used strictly as a known basepoint for branching
customer ports from. It was compatible with neither the gcc-2.95 ABI
nor the gcc3 ABI, and we told'em that, too. Hell, it wouldn't even
compile the Linux kernel, which is why RH7 shipped with gcc (gcc-2.96)
and kgcc (AKA gcc-2.95.3). But did they listen?
...What do YOU think?
.********* Fight Back! It may not be just YOUR life at risk. *********.
: phil stracchino : unix ronin : renaissance man : mystic zen biker geek :
: alaric at caerllewys.net : alaric-ruthven at earthlink.net : phil at latt.net :
: 2000 CBR929RR, 1991 VFR750F3 (foully murdered), 1986 VF500F (sold) :
: Linux Now! ...Because friends don't let friends use Microsoft. :
More information about the rescue