JF Martinez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > -pgcc not being the official gcc is far less well tested than gcc and > has far less people behind it than gcc. Also, to the best of my knowledge, optimizations which work in pgcc will be incorporated into gcc. -- Alan Shutko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - In a variety of flavors! 192 days, 18 hours, 4 minutes, 16 seconds till we run away. But Officer, I stopped for the last one, and it was green! -- To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? JF Martinez
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Chmouel Boudjnah
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Trond Eivind Glomsrød
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Trond Eivind Glomsrød
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... JF Martinez
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... Alan Shutko
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... Alan Shutko
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... Alan Shutko
- RE: Why no i586/i686 suppo... Joseph Malicki
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... Alan Cox
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 suppo... Alan Cox
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Trond Eivind Glomsrød