🚀 go-pugleaf

rpjday@cuug.ab.ca (R. Day) writes:
>  Hi.  Given the number of obvious bugs in the latest versions
>of gcc, what is the most recent version of gcc that would be
>considered fairly reliable in terms of just the C compiler?

The newest release, 2.5.7, should be pretty solid except on the
RS/6000, which has a nasty bug in the back end for the % (modulo)
operator.  I suspect that some of the sloppiness in the release
process has to do with RMS passing on the responsibility for the
release to someone who hasn't done it before, though I'd be more
reassured if I were sure that people realize that there's a problem.

But the claims that gcc is "out of beta" seem hard to maintain.
With 2.5.6, an announcement was made that there wouldn't be any
more releases until 2.6 in a few months, but 2.5.6 wouldn't even
bootstrap on four major platforms.

>  And if I try to build g++, the same question applies.
>I can live without templates so should I build gcc-2.3.3?
>gcc-2.4.5?  I'm more interested in a reliable subset of C++,
>rather than a complete implementation that's still a bit
>shaky.

gcc-2.4.5 was pretty good for that, but I think that gcc-2.5.7
should now be in pretty good shape.  Do NOT attempt to use gcc-2.5.x
for x < 6 for C++ code; these were really bad.


-- 
-- Joe Buck	jbuck@synopsys.com
Posting from but not speaking for Synopsys, Inc.
Formerly jbuck@<various-hosts>.eecs.berkeley.edu