On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 12:44:38PM -0500, Johan Kullstam <kullstam@ne.mediaone.net> wrote:
> judging from lurking on the gcc list it doesn't look like any new
> release is immanent either (since there hasn't been any calls for code
> freezes and such).
Indeed, there won't be a 2.96 (or 2.97, 3.0) very soon, for, ehrm, "minor
lack of developer resources".
There is currently discussion on wether to release a 2.95.3 with all the
bugfixes found on the 2.95 release branch. (I'm all in favour of it).
I haven't checked wether that particular bug was fixed in the 2.95 branch,
though.
> offers a patched version of 2.95.2. where do the rest of us go for
> working gcc? are we expected to pull things off the cvs tree at
> cygnus?
There are many versions of gcc without that bug, and if all suffer from
the same bug it is relatively unimportant ;) So up or downgrading should
be an option. Or waiting for the next release.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@opengroup.org |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 21:00:25 EST