On 30 Jan 2004, "Benjamin S. Scarlet" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not enough of a reason, no. It's quite likely that, having just run > into two (minor) bugs with the current argument processing, my > perception of the relative value of a better way to process arguments is > exaggerated. What tree were they in? Something of your own, or something that other people are likely to run into? > It does seem awkward that distcc must duplicate the work in the gcc > driver of interpreting gcc's vast collection of arguments. Yes, it is. I had not realized there would be quite so many special cases. -- Martin
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
__ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc
