Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > > They released a supported ex-Cygnus people approved compiler.
> >
> > Which still makes it an broken, experimental, unreleased and unofficial
> > compiler, with all the consequences I said.
>
> And didnt you write something called pgcc once.
And then there isn't anything I could see which would prohibit anybody
from taking gcc-2.96 and ship it in any distro they wish too.
Alan you are in full right here the gcc-2.96 DOES a significantly
*better* job on in esp. C++ for example then any other gcc before - at
least on the arch's which really matter those days. The PGCC never
really worked. In fact on TeX at least it generated worder
code then the plain gcc-2.7.3 those day's....
-
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 Oct 07 2000 - 21:00:07 EST