From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7825 invoked by alias); 31 Mar 2002 12:18:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 7728 invoked from network); 31 Mar 2002 12:18:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de) (131.188.30.102) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Mar 2002 12:18:18 -0000 Received: from rz.de (root@faui02b.informatik.uni-erlangen.de [131.188.30.151]) by faui02.informatik.uni-erlangen.de (8.9.1/8.1.16-FAU) with ESMTP id OAA21109; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:18:15 +0200 (MEST) Received: (from rz@localhost) by rz.de (8.8.8/8.8.8) id OAA00590; Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:06:19 +0200 Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 06:48:00 -0000 From: Richard Zidlicky To: "David O'Brien" Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: making a 2.95.4 release Message-ID: <20020331140618.D541@linux-m68k.org> References: <20020328092214.A87939@dragon.nuxi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <20020328092214.A87939@dragon.nuxi.com>; from obrien@FreeBSD.org on Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:22:14AM -0800 X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg01893.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:22:14AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > For various reason people are still downloading and using 2.95.3 to this > day. GCC 3.x is also inappropriate for some of the BSD releases due to > the major changes between 2.95->3.0. Just this week someone else was > asking for a 2.95.4 release. yes, there are difference between 2.95 and 3.0 or 3.1. However for many architectures 2.95 is too old and only additional headache. I would really appreciate if some of the bigger distributions would finally drop the old c**p. The fact that a few packages need little patches is imho not an excuse to use a broken compiler forever. Personally I use various 3.0 snapshots ever since the first 3.0 prerelease to keep the m68k/Q40 distribution up to date (well trying desperately) and most problems were really minor. Generally my experiences with 3.0 are extremely positive, only 2.7.2.3 was similarly reliable - great thanks to the gcc hackers and especially Roman Zippel who fixed the m68k port. 2.95 official releases otoh appear to get worse with every release - at least for m68k - so I have stopped using it at all after briefly testing 2.95.3. Richard