^thehatsrule^
Group: Members
Posts: 3275
Joined: July 2006 |
 |
Posted: Jan. 23 2008,19:53 |
 |
| Quote (lucky13 @ Jan. 23 2008,14:35) | | Quote | | If so, does anyone know how/why gcc-2.95 is safer than gcc-3.3 in this case, assuming that both compilers are able to compile the module cleanly? |
The principle is matching a compiler (and c library) version throughout kernelspace so there aren't any surprises between the way one version handles certain things compared to a different version. I don't think 2.95 is inherently "safer" than any other version of gcc. Some of the differences between 2.x and 3.x and now 4.x may seem relatively minor, but there is enough variation that it can matter a lot (especially at kernel level). |
And another one is that 3.3 supports a newer version of the C standard.
I guess I'm not getting my point across on the libGL things - there may be older programs that look in this location... but I also see your point about the rest of the X libs not being there.... so I will stop here also because this thread is old and perhaps opening a new thread specific to this extension would be more appropriate.
|
.
DSL Market ,
Great VPS hosting provided by Tektonic
