From owner-freebsd-current Mon Sep 2 2:15:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B5037B400; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from warez.scriptkiddie.org (uswest-dsl-142-38.cortland.com [209.162.142.38]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A9FC43E6E; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:15:51 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from lamont@scriptkiddie.org) Received: from [192.168.69.11] (unknown [192.168.69.11]) by warez.scriptkiddie.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D0862D1A; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:15:47 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 02:17:25 -0700 (PDT) From: Lamont Granquist To: David O'Brien Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc 3.1 / streambuf.h broken with "using namespace std;" In-Reply-To: <20020901230840.GA37166@dragon.nuxi.com> Message-ID: <20020902021408.R14754-100000@coredump.scriptkiddie.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 1 Sep 2002, David O'Brien wrote: > On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 12:37:14PM -0700, Lamont Granquist wrote: > > It sounds like gcc-3.1 or gcc-3.2 will be archaic and buggy > > by the time that 5.2 and 5.3 come out. > > How would gcc-3.2 get more buggy over time than it is today?? I said it was buggy. Do you mean to imply that gcc-3.2 doesn't have a single bug in it? Admittedly I should have said "unmaintained" though -- point being that the bugs in it wouldn't be getting fixed by gcc developers who would rather fix them in 3.3... > "archaic" does apply however. > > Why the fsck can't people come up to speed on an issue before spewing > FUD? I fail to see why assuming that a software project the size of the gcc compiler has a few bugs is "FUD"... To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message