[plug] gcc3 vs gcc 2.95.x - belay that!

[Denis Brown]

Thanks, Cameron.

On Tue, 3 Feb 2004, Cameron Patrick wrote:

> Denis Brown wrote:
>
> | Debian's package search site has just come alive and I see there is a
> | gcc-3.0 on offer.   Okay, not bleeding edge by all accounts from the gcc
> | site but it should get me (safely) working with the 3 version.
>
> I've been using gcc 3.2/3.3 quite successfully and for numerical stuff
> it does seem to optimise better than gcc 2.9x.  However I've heard tell
> that 3.0 is a bit buggy, especially for C++ (which is apparently still
> undergoing some fixing), so you might be better off avoiding it, or at
> least making sure that it works with what you're compiling with it.
>
Thanks.   In that case I'll see if I can shoehorn a from-source
3.3.whatever on a non-production machine and trial it there.

> Grabbing a gcc from testing/unstable would probably be a bad move as
> there were some pretty magic binary-incompatible changes made somewhere.
>
Having recently had success with packaging a kernel for mini-iso use, it
might be time for me to look at rolling other stuff into Debian packages.
I figure that as long as I do it correctly, I have a good chance to roll
back if things turn out badly.   Although compilers could be quite tricky
since, once they've been inculcated into a system and utilities, etc
built against their libraries, it could prove "interesting" trying to go
backwards.  Of course backups become even more essential :-)

> | BTW... I too have had no success getting to Debian's security list today
> | and since their breakin,
>
> klecker.d.o (which hosts security and non-us) is definitely down - it's
> been mentioned on this list and various Debian lists already today.  I'm
> not sure why.
>
Thanks, and to Onno.   I must have missed the info in the maze of 0/1
clocks and "TV-or-not-TV, that is the question!" threads :-)

Cheers,
Denis