You are absolutely right. https://slashdot.org/story/99/04/20/1453234/egcs-to-become-gcc https://slashdot.org/story/99/04/20/1453234/egcs-to-become-g... The f

You are absolutely right. https://slashdot.org/story/99/04/20/1453234/egcs-to-become-gcc https://slashdot.org/story/99/04/20/1453234/egcs-to-become-g... The funny thing was, gcc 2.95.3 (being mostly egcs as you point out) was more stable than both previous versions of egcs and gcc. I distinctly remember gcc 2.8 having problems with the kernel, and egcs having problems with various userland stuff (mostly GNOME). Having to deal with two compiler forks each with their showstopper bugs seemed to go away rather markedly with 2.95.3. EDIT: found a discussion which covers the idea that it was code in both the kernel/userspace which relied on UB or bugs of gcc 2.7.x https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.development.system/lqaFc2jAKPE%5B1-25%5D https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.develo...