declan.moriarty at ntlworld.ie
Wed May 8 02:23:04 PDT 2002
Was it R. Bosch who wrote on Wednesday 08 May 2002 10:58:
> I experianced little problems with the use of gcc3 as base for my system.
> As stated earlier I had problems with NVdrivers.... appearently symbols
> don't ad up, or something ilke that. My gues i,s that it would take around
> six moths to say that a system based on gcc3* is stable :-(
> Back to gcc2.95.3...
This raises something in my mind. I gather the situation is that gcc-2.9x was
limited in some way which caused code generally to be written allowing for
these limitations. Now that gcc-3x is out, these limitations no longer exist
in the compiler, but code breaks because it's written for the wrong compiler.
Is that the picture?
If so, all of us will have to upgrade to gcc-3.x at some stage. Will this
affect software we have on board now, or will we have to rebuild with
gcc-3.x? I was particularly thinking of kernel headers, or other things that
may not pass well through this transition of compilers.
Applied Researches - Ireland's Foremost Electronic Hardware Genius
A Slightly Serious(TM) Company
Experience is like a comb,
that Life gives you - AFTER all your hair has fallen out!
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe blfs-support' in the subject header of the message
More information about the blfs-support