From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:14:15 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:14:07 -0500 Received: from mail.delfi.lt ([213.197.128.86]:5382 "HELO mx-outgoing.delfi.lt") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id convert rfc822-to-8bit; Fri, 23 Nov 2001 12:13:52 -0500 Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 19:13:30 +0200 (EET) From: Nerijus Baliunas Subject: Re[2]: Which gcc version? To: "lgb@lgb.hu" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=ISO-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Content-Disposition: INLINE In-Reply-To: <20011123125137Z282133-17408+17815@vger.kernel.org> <5.1.0.14.2.20011123135801.00aad970@pop.cus.cam.ac.uk> <3BFE591B.D1F75CD5@starband.net> <3BFE67E8.CFA0D371@redhat.com> <20011123163019.A5418@vega.digitel2002.hu> In-Reply-To: <20011123163019.A5418@vega.digitel2002.hu> X-Mailer: Mahogany, 0.64.1 'Sparc', compiled for Linux 2.4.14 i686 Message-Id: <20011123171351.CE6C4904A5@mail.delfi.lt> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 23 Nov 2001 16:30:19 +0100 Gábor Lénárt wrote: GL> True, but as it's known, gcc-2.96 is NOT an official gcc release by the gcc GL> team. It was RedHat's fault to fetch a development CVS gcc snapshot and GL> release it as gcc 2.96 in RedHat distributions There were some good reasons for that - people were faced with new gcc (which now is 3.0x) features almost a year ago. Now much less software would compile without problems with gcc 3.x if RH 7.x didn't include gcc 2.96 then... Anyway, latest gcc 2.96 is very stable, so please stop ranting. Regards, Nerijus