LFS Ideas

it's a good thing. they're obviously focused on releasing the best possible gcc 3.1

i prefer a gcc 3.1 that's been pushed back a couple of weeks to fix some bugs over a gcc 3.1 that was released on time but still had the bugs in it

Agreed, GCC should be ROCK stable, or at least as close as possible.

[Feztaa]

With the sb live, you should be using the kernel module for emu10k1

Yeah, that's exactly what I"m using (I have the bass/treble sliders on my mixer). Isn't that OSS? Or is it just OSS-compatible? It said something about the OSS module when I was compiling the kernel, anyway.

Whatever. It works for me!

[Ashcrow]

Gcc3 will pretty much break half your stuff. LC tried it, and it failed... big time.

I compiled LFS with gcc-3.03 without any problems.

I compiled LFS with gcc-3.03 without any problems.

lots of people have compiled LFS systems with gcc 3 and it worked (allthough ncurses needs to be patched for gcc 3). the problem is with what comes after the book. right now gcc 2.95.3 compiles every software package whereas gcc 3 still doesn't and that is the problem

lots of people have compiled LFS systems with gcc 3 and it worked (allthough ncurses needs to be patched for gcc 3). the problem is with what comes after the book. right now gcc 2.95.3 compiles every software package whereas gcc 3 still doesn't and that is the problem

Remember the reason for the GCC 3.1 delay was the massive amount of breakage in GCC3, it's simply not ready for widespread use, with GCC 3.1 I think we'll much closer to that.

And if 3.2 has the header prelinking patch we can expect MASSIVE increase in compile speed, so good things are still ahead - but mostly people will notice LInux getting faster when binutils and GCC finally get decent prelinking, it has some right now with binutils 2.12 but it's said to be dodgy.