X-POP3-Rcpt: mlehmann AT universe DOT sgh-net DOT de
Message-ID: <19980125213610.03895@cerebro.laendle>
25 Jan 1998 21:36:10 +0100
From: Marc Lehmann <pcg AT goof DOT com>
To: Andrew J Prowant <ajpst27+@pitt.edu>
Cc: beastium <beastium-list AT Desk DOT nl>
Subject: Re: PGCC and GCC 2.8?
References: <Pine DOT GSO DOT 3 DOT 96L DOT 980125123525 DOT 2857B-100000 AT unixs4 DOT cis DOT pitt DOT edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Mailer: Mutt 0.88
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.3.96L.980125123525.2857B-100000@unixs4.cis.pitt.edu>; from Andrew J Prowant on Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 12:37:28PM -0500
X-Operating-System: Linux version 2.1.81 (root AT cerebro) (gcc version pgcc-2.91.05 980122 (gcc-2.8.0 release)) 
Status: RO
Content-Length: 892
Lines: 19

On Sun, Jan 25, 1998 at 12:37:28PM -0500, Andrew J Prowant wrote:
> Hi, I just joined the list and I was wondering if there are any plans for
> a PGCC release based off of GCC 2.8?  Or is there no reason to? 

No, I don't like gcc-2.8.0 for a number of reasons, including performance
stability and management.

egcs should be as stable, fast and portable as gcc-2.8.0.

Is there a specific reason you need a release based on gcc-2.8.0?
I cannot think of any...

      -----==-                                              |
      ----==-- _                                            |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann       +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       pcg AT goof DOT com       |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\                          --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                        |
                                                          |