GCC-4.7.2-2: Go/No-go?

[Thomas Wolff]

Am 11.04.2013 14:34, schrieb Dave Korn:
> On 11/04/2013 13:19, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>
>>>>> On 2013-04-11 01:02, Dave Korn wrote:
>>>>>>    Yep, sure.  *sigh*, I'm sure we'll suddenly find out that someone was using
>>>>>> it and wants to know where it's gone.  (I suppose if that happens I could
>>>>>> always consider rolling a gcc3 package with all -3 suffixed executables.)
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>    If you really want to stick to an old
>> gcc, make sure it's not the default.  Call it gcc-3 or legacy-gcc, but
>> let's get it out of the way of the most recent version.
>    Yes, that's what I meant to imply by the wording.  Different name + suffixed
> executables = out of the way.
>
>    Also, I don't plan on doing it unless there's significant demand.
I would appreciate to keep it as gcc-3. The reason is quite peculiar; 
gcc-4 changed the order of variables in the stack frame of a function 
call, which led to one very specific interworking malfunction (between 
mintty and mined) which in turn unveiled a very subtle bug. This is 
material for very interesting debugging exercises for students... Not 
sure whether it's significant but the changed variable order might in 
fact affect other software as well.
------
Thomas