From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) id g1BHTEA13946 for linux-mips-outgoing; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:29:14 -0800 Received: from hell (buserror-extern.convergence.de [212.84.236.66]) by oss.sgi.com (8.11.2/8.11.3) with SMTP id g1BHT9913943 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 09:29:09 -0800 Received: from js by hell with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16aJJs-0000nH-00; Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:28:44 +0100 Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 17:28:44 +0100 From: Johannes Stezenbach To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" Cc: Florian Lohoff , linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: gcc include strangeness Message-ID: <20020211162844.GD2918@convergence.de> Mail-Followup-To: Johannes Stezenbach , "Maciej W. Rozycki" , Florian Lohoff , linux-mips@oss.sgi.com References: <20020211142708.GA2577@convergence.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.27i Sender: owner-linux-mips@oss.sgi.com Precedence: bulk On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 04:10:34PM +0100, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote: > > Is gcc 3.x already stable enough to be used by people not directly > involved in gcc development? More specifically for MIPS/Linux and > i386/Linux, for both the kernel and the userland? I'm told it is not. I'm reading about gcc 3.x code generation bugs every now and then, but so far I did not hit any of them. I would prefer gcc 2.95.x though, if I only could get it to work on MIPS. > Gcc 2.95.x as distributed certainly doesn't work. With a set of patches > it appears rock solid. For MIPS/Linux I'm using it for over two years for > both the kernel and the userland. The last time I found bug and needed to > apply a fix to gcc 2.95.3 for MIPS/Linux was in April 2001. I would certainly be interested in getting my hands on those patches. Do you mind if I ask why they did not go into gcc-2_95-branch CVS? Regards, Johannes