narse at underachiever.2y.net
Wed Oct 24 20:34:08 PDT 2001
on 10/23/01 12:47, Gregory Davis at gdavis7 at umbc.edu wrote:
> Anders Widman wrote:
>> Well, I have been testing GCC 3.0 a little and found that many programs do
>> not work properly if compiled with it.
> Is that the fault of the compiler being too strict, or the coder being too
> lax in their C/C++ standards? I don't use 3.0.x for this reason, but I
> here it has a flag (-89) that defaults back to the 2.95.x behavior
> (presumeably based on ANSI standards from 1989). What is the status of
> C++? When was the last ANSI revision?
I brought this question up after trying to do a lfs install using gcc 3.
instead of gcc 2.95. glibc actually warned me against using 3. for some
reason but i ignored it. turns out i should not have because virtually
nothing worked, simple things like ldconfig seg'd. perhaps this is just me,
soon as i'm done with this lfs install (folowing the directions this
time...) i'll know. if someone does have more information on how gcc 3. is
different from 2.95., i'd love to hear it.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-support' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-support