[NTLUG:Discuss] (Sigh) more on gcc 3.0

[cbbrowne@hex.net]

On Tue, 03 Jul 2001 20:58:47 CDT, the world broke into rejoicing as
Chris Cox <cjcox at acm.org>  said:
> From the KDE 2.2 announcement today:
> 
> Note: gcc 3.0 is not recommended for compilation of KDE 2.2. There
> are several known miscompilations of production C++ code with this
> compiler, like i.e. virtual inheritance which is used for example in arts.
> We know that you will experience a lot of runtime difficulties when you
> compile with gcc 3.0, so using this particular compiler version is at your
> own risk, and please do not report bugs to us if you use this compiler.
> The problems are mostly known and we're working with the gcc team
> to get them fixed.
> 
> I think it's kind of funny that the whole reason that RedHat
> jumped the gun with 2.96 was because the C++ compiler was better....
> maybe this problem is only in 3.0 and not 2.96??  Interesting
> none the less.

Well, in effect, GCC 3.0 is like a "Linux 2.even.0".  It _in theory_
ought to be a Stable Release Candidate.  [Note that there are three
different words there that an "accent" could be put on...]

But everyone knows that Linux 2.4.0 was still pretty experimental;
ready enough to tell the world that it's _just about ready_, but not
quite ready enough to deploy your production server on.

Note their comment that "we're working with the gcc team to get
them fixed."  It's _entirely_ appropriate for people that are working
on some "bleeding edge" stuff to see what GCC 3.0 does, so that what
things are broken can get quickly fixed so that 3.0.1 [or something]
can become a More Stable Release Candidate.
--
(concatenate 'string "cbbrowne" "@ntlug.org")
http://vip.hex.net/~cbbrowne/
"You'll be  rid of most of us  when BSD-detox or GNU  comes out, which
should happen in the next few months (yeah, right)." -- Richard Tobin,
1992. [BSD did follow within a year]