From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20534 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2002 16:47:47 -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 20519 invoked from network); 6 Jul 2002 16:47:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Jul 2002 16:47:45 -0000 Received: from porcupine.slc.redhat.com (vpn3-2.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.25.2]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA20267; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 09:47:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from porcupine (law@localhost) by porcupine.slc.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g66Goub07332; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 10:50:56 -0600 Message-Id: <200207061650.g66Goub07332@porcupine.slc.redhat.com> To: Andreas Jaeger cc: Jakub Jelinek , Gabriel Dos Reis , Mark Mitchell , "obrien@freebsd.org" , "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" Reply-To: law@redhat.com Subject: Re: C++ binary compatibility between GCC 3.1 and GCC 3.2? In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:38:58 +0200." Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 11:08:00 -0000 From: Jeff Law X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00278.txt.bz2 In message , Andreas Jaeger writes: >Jakub Jelinek writes: >I agree with you, Jakub. > >Who would be interested in such a switch? FreeBSD and SuSE seem to be >interested. What about Linux distributors, e.g. Red Hat and other >OSes? We're definitely interested. And like SuSE, if we could get the bits in July they would be useful, if they don't arrive until September, then they would not be useful. jeff