[VANILLA-L:1093] Re: [VANILLA-L:1092] gcc 2.8.0 sucks?

To: vanilla-l@us.netrek.org
Subject: [VANILLA-L:1093] Re: [VANILLA-L:1092] gcc 2.8.0 sucks?
From: James Cameron <cameron@stl.dec.com>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 14:29:16 +1000
Organization: Netrek Vanilla Server Maintainer
References: <19981007232212.D14465@wizard.real-time.com>
Reply-To: vanilla-l@us.netrek.org
Sender: owner-vanilla-l

Bob Tanner wrote:
> Anyone have time to look at this?

Not I.  Would need a Solaris box.

> How about you other non-solaris platforms using gcc 2.8.0?

Not I.  Not that bleeding edge yet.  ;-)

-- 
James Cameron                                    (cameron@stl.dec.com)
Digital Equipment Corporation (Australia) Pty. Ltd. A.C.N. 000 446 800
+
++ Vanilla-l Mailing List ++
To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe vanilla-l" to majordomo@real-time.com
For more information: http://archives.real-time.com

References:

[VANILLA-L:1092] gcc 2.8.0 sucks?

From: Bob Tanner <tanner@real-time.com>

Prev by Date: [VANILLA-L:1095] gcc 2.8.1 vs 2.7.2.1
Next by Date: [VANILLA-L:1094] Re: [VANILLA-L:1092] gcc 2.8.0 sucks?
Prev by thread: [VANILLA-L:1094] Re: [VANILLA-L:1092] gcc 2.8.0 sucks?
Next by thread: [VANILLA-L:1095] gcc 2.8.1 vs 2.7.2.1
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread