delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: djgpp/2000/03/23/19:46:34

Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 05:28:04 +0600 (LKT)
From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
X-Sender: root AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: [WANTED]Old GCC/GXX's
In-Reply-To: <200003232104.PAA26984@darwin.sfbr.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10003240521260.2621-100000@darkstar.grendel.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

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

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.

IMHO you will certainly loose out if you stick to gcc 2.7.x as there
support for c++ exceptions is extrememly poor, and surely the fact that
the 2.8 and 2.9.5.x produce better faster code than the 2.7.x series is
itself enough to upgrade to a newer compiler.


Grendel

Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread
:)

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019