Egor Pasko wrote: > I am OK with all. Some comments: > * we should explicitly say that it is a GNU make. > * the more restrictive GCC, the better. What is the most restrictive > now? gcc-4.1? > > P.S.: I personally like diversity in tool chains. Let's make a single > configuration not a must, but a matter of priority. So, we can > consider achieving good results on these two toolchains as the first > priority and fix bugs there first. Not because there should be only > one, but because there should be at least one. > > Does it feel comfortable to everyone?
I fully agree with you Egor, this can be a principal tool chain but we will be keen to hear about problems from anyone and we will strive to fix our code where it will help. Of course, we will have dependencies on minimum and maybe maximum (e.g. Ant ;-) ) versions known to work. Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
