Date:	Sun, 2 Apr 2000 08:35:32 +0200 (IST)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
cc:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: [WANTED]Old GCC/GXX's
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10003240521260.2621-100000@darkstar.grendel.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000402083348.8988F-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Fri, 24 Mar 2000, Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel wrote:

> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > 
> > I agree completely; I'm still using gcc 2.7.2.1 because the traffic
> > on this mailing list regarding 2.8.0, then 2.8.1, then 2.9.5.x, has
> > convinced me to stick with a proven winner.
> 
> I don't agree with your statement Jeff. IMHO 2.8.x were/are very stable
> compilers,

GCC 2.8 introduced some aggressive optimizations that could bite you
in marginal cases.

> and I've been on this list for quite sometime now and I can't
> recall any "traffic" regarding GCC 2.81.

I do recall such traffic.

> gcc 2.9.5 is also a reliable compiler and the only problems people run
> into are because of the slightly different inline assembly syntax that
> made certain old programs appear broken.

That's not true.  Try to read the gcc mailing list, the stream of serious 
bug reports has not subsided yet, even if you ignore C++-related problems.

- Raw text -