From: Wu Y. <ad...@ne...> - 2004-08-04 05:03:35
|
I am relatively neutral on this point: PRO: GCC 3.4 is new and cannot be said as extremely stable. The performance of resulting executables, at least in the respect of STL, cannot be flattered. ABIs may even change between 3.4 and 3.5 (correct me if I am wrong on this point). Fedora Core 2 ships with both GCC 3.3 and 3.4, with GCC 3.3 as default, because much code will break on GCC 3.4. CON: There are enough old releases around. IMHO, the stablest are GCC 3.2.3 and 2.95.3-8. They are OK for most uses. Maintaining multiple branches is really time-consuming. Best regards, Yongwei --- Original Message from Danny Smith --- I am forwarding this to mingw-users, since maybe someone else will want gcc-3.3.[4|5] package. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alexei Podtelezhnikov" | | Any plans to package gcc-3.3.4 and realease it? | gcc-3.3.4 | - still produces smaller executables than 3.4.1 | - is supported with plans to release 3.3.5 | - considered superstable and more compact | - you were considering it back in april : | http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=7963238 | | PLEASE I am not so sure, since there are many ABI changes between 3.4 and 3.3.x and maintaining two releases of something as big as gcc is not my idea of fun. But, it can be done, if enough users want it. Danny |
From: Aaron W. L. <aar...@aa...> - 2004-08-04 08:36:18
|
Wu Yongwei wrote: > PRO: GCC 3.4 is new and cannot be said as extremely stable. The > performance of resulting executables, at least in the respect of STL, > cannot be flattered. ABIs may even change between 3.4 and 3.5 (correct > me if I am wrong on this point). Fedora Core 2 ships with both GCC 3.3 > and 3.4, with GCC 3.3 as default, because much code will break on GCC 3.4. How about for GCC 3.5, we get it to be 'extremely stable' from the outset, and have no more concerns of this sort? :) Its too bad to have to be spending much effort on an obsolete branch. Aaron W. LaFramboise |
From: Danny S. <dan...@cl...> - 2004-08-04 10:32:26
|
----- Original Message ----- From: "Aaron W. LaFramboise" | Wu Yongwei wrote: | > PRO: GCC 3.4 is new and cannot be said as extremely stable. The | > performance of resulting executables, at least in the respect of STL, | > cannot be flattered. ABIs may even change between 3.4 and 3.5 (correct | > me if I am wrong on this point). Fedora Core 2 ships with both GCC 3.3 | > and 3.4, with GCC 3.3 as default, because much code will break on GCC 3.4. | | How about for GCC 3.5, we get it to be 'extremely stable' from the | outset, and have no more concerns of this sort? :) Sure, if you want GCC-3.5 to be stable from the outset, it might be ready by 2006. And even then new bugs will appear when it hits the streets, The whole idea of "release soon, release often" is to expose the package to a wide user base to get feedback. Its too bad to have | to be spending much effort on an obsolete branch. Well, I have an old 1974 Toyota that is obsolete too, but it still starts on cold morning and I can actually stick my hands under the bonnet and know what I'm doing. Danny | | Aaron W. LaFramboise | | | | ------------------------------------------------------- | This SF.Net email is sponsored by OSTG. Have you noticed the changes on | Linux.com, ITManagersJournal and NewsForge in the past few weeks? Now, | one more big change to announce. We are now OSTG- Open Source Technology | Group. Come see the changes on the new OSTG site. www.ostg.com | _______________________________________________ | MinGW-users mailing list | Min...@li... | | You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at: | https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mingw-users |