-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
All,
Why not ditch pgcc for gcc-2.95? Well, because it is so new (kinda;) and
not all packages are ready for it - MICO for one. I do know that it kicks
up errors where egcs/pgcc would just warn. Its mainly a C++ thing. Yes,
patches do exist for MICO on 2.95 but Kay Roemer, still maintains that it
doesn't work.
Bruce.
On Fri, 27 Aug 1999, [iso-8859-1] Grégoire Colbert wrote:
> Jürgen Zimmermann wrote:
> >
> > Hello,
> > is there a reason behind the fact that both are in the main directory?
> > Moreover, there are still gcc-2.95 packages in contrib along with
> > pgcc-2.95 (which someone (Bero) identified as completely broken).
> >
> > My opinion: Go for gcc-2.95.1 and remove the others completely...
> >
> > Juergen
>
> I agree with you. I don't understand why we currently have both gcc and pgcc
> in cooker.
>
> Gregus
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Comment: PGPEnvelope - http://www.bigfoot.com/~ftobin/resources.html
Charset: noconv
iQCVAwUBN8adERD3wQIebJRhAQEIkgP8CfZL9ucmfTCq1FUoOfhq8NarCFpXJZDc
FmTHfFzwT1OzXAEVFPncdBrJK0NhT5tTndWhdo4pjs9zFWJE+4V2A4+Y6LGkx4vh
jMB6Z6HwTzTpu/iREjcQVgNJBcQKl86Sk8KJy9dFA6/eZrgwnDXiPrE7uO2nYPLq
yWcybxaUruE=
=ULgf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
