I realize this is an old thread, but I just had to comment:On Tuesday, Aug 13, 2002, at 08:43 US/Eastern, Matthias Saou wrote:> Once upon a time, Dave wrote :
>
>> Eeeek... I hope they aren't intending to release a new RH with a new 
>> gcc
>> which hasn't yet been released (again). Bad enough the first time, and
>> I'm sure it gave RedHat a lot of embarrassment.
>
> Not really, it should have given more embarrassment to sloppy C++
> programmers although they often were the ones bashing on gcc 2.96...A lot of C++ programmers, myself included, were /not/ complaining about 
gcc's stricter adherence to the specification (which, by the way, a lot 
of kernel programmers complain about with gcc 3.x -- at least, the 
patch authors I've talked to hate gcc 3) -- gcc "2.96" had a lot of 
bugs. A lot. It crashed on me many times while working on my projects. 
Later "versions" of "2.96" fixed this, but it was well after 3.0 was 
released that it finally seemed reasonably stable -- and at that point, 
I just wanted to use 3.0, so I did.Julian
_______________________________________________
RPM-List mailing list 
http://lists.freshrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list