Wessel Dankers wrote:
On 2003-03-09 16:55:10+0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
I'm sorry, I missed the sign around your neck saying "Troll".
You could put that in your sig for instance so that it's readily apparent.
Funny, I don't see a useful reply to his question from you on the list.
Perhaps it got lost somewhere? Pardon me for being harsh towards Red Hat
for shipping a broken compiler, but if you have such a problem with the
tone of my reply, may I kindly suggest that you answer such questions about
the infamous gcc 2.96 "release" yourself next time?
If you feel a need for additional argumentation, please follow up in
private; discussions like this are a waste of mailing list bandwidth.
2.96 was a beta compiler, granted. However RedHat went far to make sure
it produced code that was production worthy. The first release didn't
have a good compiler (7.0) but subsequent compilers were. I'm sick
and tired of people racking down on RedHat distributions and compilers
all the time. Any compiler has bugs. It is not anything special (as you
seem to be believe) with 2.96. Also, a more useful reply would perhaps
be "Switch to RedHat 8.0, it's got GCC 3.2" if in fact the bug is
caused by a bug in the compiler, but alas, you rack down
on RedHat instead. That is trolling.