Re: [GnomeMeeting-list] RPMS again

[Alex Larsson <alexl redhat com>]

On 4 Dec 2001, Chris Tooley wrote:

> On Tue, 2001-12-04 at 08:58, Christian Rose wrote:
> > Chris Tooley wrote:
> > > > gcc 2.95.4 (Debian) works fine, or replacing -mcpu=i686 by -mcpu=i386
> > > > with gcc 2.96 works fine.
> > >
> > > You have officially been bitten by the RedHat gcc bug that everyone was
> > > bitching about. :)
> 
> Correction, Not a "bug" just a "pre-release" version of the software
> that has been heavily modified. The fact that gcc-2.95 works and 2.96
> doesn't (at least in this instance) shows that 2.96 isn't providing
> expected behaviour.

No. It shows that people always blame gcc 2.96 whenever they can, because 
they've got no interest in looking for the real problem.

They've found the bug now, and it was a case of programming error, where 
2.95 randomly made it work due to luck.

> It started with RedHat 7.0 and has gotten significantly better, but is
> still an "unsupported" version by the gcc team.  An open letter on the
> issue by Bob Young explains their standing on the issue as of October
> 12, 2000.  But it's still not a release, no matter how many patches you
> apply, that the gcc team would like people using, 2.95 is.
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/10/12/163218&mode=thread

Bah! What a bunch of crap. None of the gcc version are "supported", but 
the redhat compiler *is* supported (by redhat, that employs a large 
fraction of the gcc people). And the 2.96 compiler is *significantly* 
better at compiling c++ code than 2.95. Who cares if the gcc team 
"released" that specific version or not.

http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html

Sure, the 2.96 compiler has had, and has bugs like any software has, but 
2.95 has bugs too.

/ Alex