> On Sat, Sep 30, 2000 at 12:37:39AM +0100, Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> > knows about both kgcc and gcc272 (RH and Debian) automatically thanks to
>
> Do you really think that explicitly supporting broken distributions
> (redhat 7.0 comes with a experimental snapshot of gcc which is neither
> binary compatible to 2.95 nor to 3.0, cutting binary compatibility to all
> other gnu/linux distributions) really is the right thing? ;)
Debian have been shipping an alternative compilers to do kernel builds for
a couple of years at least. So now they are using 2.2 it makes a lot of sense
to spot it, and ditto with any others who do the same. If everyone could have
agreed a name for the kernel compiler that would be even better.
As to compatibility I am told by folks working on the gnu C/C++ that library
level compatibility should be 100% between 2.96+ and 3.0 while 2.95 is an
isolated incompatible pseudo-release at C++ level.
My own interest in this is the LSB, where the inability of the Gnu C++ folks
to have a defined binary standard is preventing standardisation of any C++
interfaces - both base classes and high level stuff.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:26 EST