gcc-2.9x & gcc-3.3x peacfully coinciding?

[Kurt Wall]

Quoth Net Llama!:
> On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Kurt Wall wrote:
> > > Is there any reason to keep the old version of gcc around, other than for
> > > the random stuff that still won't buld right on gcc-3.x?
> >
> > I'd keep it around until you're sure the new one works.
> 
> Do you know of a list of stuff that is known not to build with gcc-3.x?

The kernel doesn't usually build with 3.3. I'm not aware of anything
else, but I just started playing with it.

> > <plug mode="shameless">
> > If all else fails, see http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=187
> > when it comes out. ;-)
> > </plug>
> 
> I don't suppose it will be out later this afternoon, will it? ;)

Um, no, I'm afraid not. The publisher wishes it were so, that's for
sure. 

Kurt
-- 
Chemicals, n.:
	Noxious substances from which modern foods are made.