[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:37:01 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote:
> ** Reply to message from Horst von Brand <> on Tue, 26 Sep
> 2000 10:45:10 -0400
>> Maybe this can be fixed for 2.96, but it breaks badly elsewhere (doesn't
>> compile; kernel builds but hangs/crashes at boot; kernel appears to work
>> fine while it is busy eating your disk; ...)
> Why is 2.96 so screwed up? I mean, the version numbers imply that 2.96 is a
> minor bugfix over 2.95, but your comments make it sound like it's a major
> change.

There is no such thing as gcc-2.96. The official GCC release is still
gcc-2.95.2. A couple of vendors (RedHat, for example) took a snapshot from
the CVS sources and branded it as gcc-2.96, but that's a known unstable
development snapshot.

The GCC people are working towards GCC 3.0, have a look at the release


There was a point to this story, but it has temporarily escaped the
croniclers mind. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.063 / U:0.380 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site