Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Wed, 30 May 2001, Allan Rae wrote: | | > On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote: | > > I'm not sure if that file will include additional patches from vendor. | > > If not, they're using a totally broken optimiser. I never got a response | > > on whether we should disable optimisation on gcc 2.96 or not ?? | | Actually we could perhaps provide a warning message like: | | Are you serious? GCC-2.96 is unofficial crap! And I still do not agree... Gcc 2.96 are working close to flawlessly for me. And a lot better than 2.95.2... But of course I run Gcc 2.96 will all RH patches applied. -- Lgb
- Attempting (and failing) to compile natbib bran... mike.ressler
- Re: Attempting (and failing) to compile na... John Levon
- Re: Attempting (and failing) to compil... mike.ressler
- Re: Attempting (and failing) to co... John Levon
- Re: Attempting (and failing) t... Allan Rae
- Re: Attempting (and faili... Allan Rae
- Re: Attempting (and f... Duncan Simpson
- Re: Attempting (a... John Levon
- Re: Attempting (and f... Lars Gullik Bjønnes
- Re: Attempting (a... Juergen Vigna
- Re: Attempting (a... Lars Gullik Bjønnes
- Re: Attempting (a... Jose Abilio Oliveira Matos
- Re: Attempting (a... Allan Rae
- Re: Attempting (a... Lars Gullik Bjønnes
- Re: Attempting (a... John Levon
- Re: Attempting (a... John Levon
- Re: Attempting (a... Lars Gullik Bjønnes
- Re: Attempting (a... John Levon
- Re: Attempting (a... Lars Gullik Bjønnes