As to whether C or C++ changed between when 2.96 came out and Centos 4.1, there is another conundrum:
Does the compiler define the language, or vice versa?
Acknowledging the human factor in the implementation of the compiler, we ought to stipulate that both 2.96 and 3.x are B - R - O - K - E - N; the question I've asked is in what way is 3.x different in how it's broken compared to 2.96
2.96 allowed some things not strictly kosher under the C/C++ language definitions, some of these are no longer winked at by the 3.x compiler.
I'm looking for a pragmatic answer, not a theorist answer, about the differences between 2.96 and 3.x.
Since nothing is coming to mind among the Notable Ones here, I'll take my question to the compiler groups...
Brian Brunner brian.t.brunner@gai-tronics.com (610)796-5838
mike.mccarty@sbcglobal.net 09/20/05 10:33AM >>>
Brian T. Brunner wrote:
This advice completely misses my point.
I think you missed the point.
What I'd like to find is a comparison of gcc 2.96.x to 3.x from the perspective of porting something from RH7.x to CentOS/RHEL 4.x
I don't want my code to stay rooted in The Dead Past. I want to know what kinds of things changed to give me clues how to CHANGE MY CODE TO FIT TODAY.
The C programming language did not change. The most likely reason your code won't compile is that the compiler is B-R-O-K-E-N.
[snip]
Mike