[MPlayer-users] Re: (flame) FAQ entry concerning gcc 2.96

[Gabucino]

It's the Question that drives us, Alex Kanavin :
> >      Q:  What's the problem with gcc 2.96 ?                                     
> >      A:  gcc 2.96 is RedHat's UNOFFICIAL
> > True.
> The name chosen for cvs snapshot was not a good one, agreed.
> 
> > 	 (it can be found only on RedHat sites,or RedHat distributions)
> > True.
> Mandrake (it is NOT Red Hat based).
Already in the FAQ. :)
They are completely alike.


> > 	 and BUGGY gcc release.
> > True.
> Can you come up with an example of such a bug? Skipping mmx does NOT
> count. Because gcc 3.x has exactly the same problem.
Am I redhat bugtraq ? Search it.


> > 	 gcc 2.96 is TOTALLY unsupported by MPlayer,
> > True.
> There were TONS of reports from people happily using mplayer with gcc 2.96
> and wondering why do you dislike it so much. Please point me to the
> negative report - I've yet to see one.
RTFarchive


> > 	 because it simply SKIPS MMX/3DNow codes, it just does not compile it.
> > True. 
> This single statement is what needs to be corrected. The description of a
As I said, the end is the same.


> >          Important: this is NOT an MPlayer-specific problem, numerous other
> > 	 projects (DRI, avifile, etc..) have problems with this shit too.                                                    
> > True.
> Give me evidence, man! You mplayer developers always talk about problems 
You say we are lying? RTFarchive of those maillists.


> >          DO NOT USE gcc 2.96 !!!
> > Good advice.
> Well, based on incorrect assumptions.
Which compiler compiles kernel always correctly ?  2.95
Which compiler compiles mplayer always correctly ? 2.95
Which compiler compiles DRI always correctly?	   2.95


> 
> >          If you really really want to do so, be sure to use the newest.         
> > Good advice.
> If so, why all the stupid childish barriers during compilation? This does 
> nothing but damage your reputation. A simple RUN-TIME warning would be 
> enough.
Just because. (talk about childishness..)


> Anyway you guys seem to be way too stubborn on the issue. Can't you just 
> accept that gcc 2.96 is not buggier than gcc 3.x? Or is this one of these 
I completely agree. gcc 3.x is even more buggier than 2.96 :)
You miss the point. gcc 2.96 is buggier than _gcc 2.95_ .


> "Red Hat is evil, we gotta blame them for something, even if it's entirely 
> made up"? 
I always used (and still use) RedHat/Mandrake. (though they wouldn't
recognize it;)


> (now that I've let my steam off, I'm quickly putting on my asbestos
> suit....)
Pls go back to the crowd.. You burn yourself..

-- 
Gabucino
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mplayerhq.hu/pipermail/mplayer-users/attachments/20011022/d84a026e/attachment.pgp>