From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QrG5A-0005gj-3p for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:12:56 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DC22D21C17D; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:12:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.alltele.net (m1.alltele.net [85.30.0.4]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B068F21C159 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 21:11:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([87.227.57.71]) by smtp.alltele.net (IceWarp 10.3.2) with ESMTP id TDV85448 for ; Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:11:48 +0200 Message-ID: <4E42F414.1050006@coolmail.se> Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2011 23:11:48 +0200 From: pk User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110724 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.10 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Which gcc unstable? References: <4E42C67B.1050909@gmail.com> <4E42C971.6050107@gmail.com> <4562529.VSJyiXps7N@eve> <4E42E083.5010909@asyr.hopto.org> <4E42EC49.6040103@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4E42EC49.6040103@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.27 required=7.00 tests=LOCALPART_IN_SUBJECT=1.56,RATWARE_RCVD_BONUS_SPC=1.00,MR_NOT_ATTRIBUTED_IP=0.20,SMILEY=-0.50,NO_RDNS2=0.01,MR_DIFF_MID=1.00 version=3.2.5 X-Spam-Level: *** X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (1.1) on smtp.alltele.net X-CTCH: RefID="str=0001.0A0B020A.4E42F416.0003,ss=1,re=0.000,fgs=0"; Spam="Unknown"; VOD="Unknown" X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: d60c8c49f87171a5999f956e5eccf157 On 2011-08-10 22:38, Dale wrote: > Yea, I googled it too. Basically, it is to support newer CPUs. Since Hm... the way I interpret it it seems similar to Intels microcode updates; this could be updates to support new CPUs and/or updates to handle bugs in the CPUs... > my CPU works, that shouldn't be the problem. I'll wait until it at > least gets out of beta. ;-) We all know my record on breaking things. > lol Yes, if you feel there's nothing wrong with your CPU perhaps it's prudent to not update to a "beta"... Best regards Peter K