🚀 go-pugleaf

mcdaniel@convex.com (Tim McDaniel) writes:
>We have a slightly hacked version 2.3.1 here.

Get rid of it.  2.3.1 was the buggiest, most embarrassing release of gcc
that leaked out in a long time; RMS replaced it the next day.  It had
numerous bugs.  No one should be running 2.3.1 and all existing copies
should be destroyed.  (I am *amazed* at how many reports I hear of people
running that version.  Just say no, everyone screws up once in a while
and that time FSF did).

>How stable are versions 2.3.1, 2.3.3, and 2.4.5 for HP-UX 9.01?  All of
>their READMEs call themselves "beta version"s.  Does -g work much at all
>for any of them?

As a general rule, given a release x.y.z, if there is another release with
the same x and y and a higher z, it indicates that the first one had a
significant bug and the maintainers thought the bug was too serious not to
be corrected immediately.  Most of the time the answer is "run the latest"
unless it is very new and much new functionality has been added.  I'd
advise running 2.4.5 or else one of the Utah versions (see below).

If you're interested in debugging, there are some political problems (HP
considers its debug format proprietary) and some workarounds (an alternate
BSDlike debug format) provided by the University of Utah.  See the FAQ
in gnu.g++.help for details.  You'll need a special version of GAS, the
Gnu assembler, to write the alternative debug format.  You can get all
of that stuff (including precompiled binaries) from the site
jaguar.cs.utah.edu in the /dist directory.




--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.EECS.Berkeley.EDU