Re: Attempting (and failing) to compile natbib branch

[Jose Abilio Oliveira Matos]

On Wed, May 30, 2001 at 11:07:55AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> Juergen Vigna <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> | On 30-May-2001 Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | 
> | > And I still do not agree... Gcc 2.96 are working close to flawlessly
> | > for me. And a lot better than 2.95.2...
> | 
> | I agree with this!

  I can only agree with this.
  
> | > But of course I_run Gcc 2.96 will all RH patches applied.
> | 
> | Well I use RH 7.1 and there are still no gcc patches for this ;)
> | (and I really think people using 7.0 should update to 7.1 it's 1/2
> | an hour, but it's worth that time :)
> 
> Agree I did the same thing.

  I hate the me too, but "me too". It is the best system I have ever used.
  
  BTW, this was discussed in this list several times before. Most of the
critics to gcc-2.96 that were posted in this thread have a week basis.

  Please look to http://www.bero.org/gcc296.html for a rebuttal.
  
> -- 
>       Lgb

-- 
José