On Saturday 11 March 2006 12:35, Johannes Winkelmann wrote:
Hi Mark,
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 10:02:11 +0100, Mark Rosenstand wrote:
FWIW, I have succesfully rebuilt (almost) all of my packages with GCC 4.1. They're from the 2.2 branch, revision 861. All were up-to-date before building, and the toolchain were first rebuilt two times, just to be sure.
[...]
Of course 4.0 is safer given its life time - this is just to report my experience with 4.1 so far, which is much better than I expected to.
Thanks for your report (slim is fixed in svn :-)). I'm kinda reluctant to ship/use a .0 gcc unless one of our maintainers is (or wants to start) following the gcc development closely (or is using 4.1 at work for example) and is able to add patches where needed (4.0.2 has currently 109 bugs reported, 4.1.0 has 628).
Fedora Core 5 (which will be released in a couple of days) will ship with both gcc 4.1 and glibc 2.4 (which by the way have run flawlessly for three days now) so when patching is needed there's a good chance finding them in their CVS. I completely agree with your general view on .0's and also that 4.0.x is the best bet for 2.2. 4.0.3 is out now, btw. :-)
However, from your report (and the ChangeLog for 4.1) updating between releases sounds quite feasible, so if we manage to get out 2.2 soon, I'd prefer to keep 4.0.x, and update to 4.1.1 or 4.1.2 through ports once they're available.
That sounds perfect!