Messages in this thread |  | | From | Erik Mouw <> | Date | Tue 26 Sep 2000 18:28:05 +0100 (MDT) |
| |
On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 10:37:01 -0500, Timur Tabi wrote: > ** Reply to message from Horst von Brand <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl> 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 criteria:
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-3.0/criteria.html
Erik
-- 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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |