Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 05:28:04 +0600 (LKT) From: Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel 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: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII 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 Precedence: bulk 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 :)