Mailing List Archive
Support open source code!
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gcc upgrade
- To: tlug@example.com
- Subject: Re: gcc upgrade
- From: Christopher SEKIYA <wileyc@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 14:35:40 +0900
- Content-Disposition: inline
- Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
- Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
- In-Reply-To: <m2bsso1fwq.fsf@example.com>; from steve@example.com on Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:53:09PM +0900
- References: <Pine.GSO.4.05.10101300153090.6551-100000@example.com> <3A776F14.C83439C1@example.com> <14967.28128.148135.809933@example.com> <m2bsso1fwq.fsf@example.com>
- Reply-To: tlug@example.com
- Resent-From: tlug@example.com
- Resent-Message-ID: <7zCqZC.A.P6G.FR6d6@example.com>
- Resent-Sender: tlug-request@example.com
- User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i-jp0
On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 01:53:09PM +0900, SL Baur wrote: > If you're going to be playing around with glibc 2.2+ (highly > recommended), use gcc 2.95.2.1. ... which, I note with interest, is not available either on ftp.gnu.org nor sourceware.cygnus.com. Not an official release? That appended .1 reminds me strongly of hjl's versioning convention, which is reason enough to stay far away from this particular compiler ... -- Chris
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: gcc upgrade
- From: SL Baur <steve@example.com>
- Re: gcc upgrade
- References:
- Re: gcc upgrade
- From: "Scott M. Stone" <sstone@example.com>
- Re: gcc upgrade
- From: Jake Morrison <jacob.morrison@example.com>
- Re: gcc upgrade
- From: Viktor Pavlenko <vp@example.com>
- Re: gcc upgrade
- From: SL Baur <steve@example.com>
- Re: gcc upgrade
- Prev by Date: Re: getcwd / Biblio and APM
- Next by Date: Re: problems with pow( ) in gcc
- Prev by thread: Re: gcc upgrade
- Next by thread: Re: gcc upgrade
- Index(es):
| Home Page | Mailing List | Linux and Japan | TLUG Members | Links |