[dang, I really meant to reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED] the first time]
> +1 to either option. Enabled by default is probably okay since it will
> help us track down problems, so I'll lean toward --disable-atomic.
Although I'd really like to see the atomics code work, having to
specify --please-make
On 26 Apr 2002, Jeff Trawick wrote:
> I could go for that or for a --disable-atomic switch which could be
> used to alleviate any problems if they happen.
+1 to either option. Enabled by default is probably okay since it will
help us track down problems, so I'll lean toward --disable-atomic.
--
Jim Jagielski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe we should have atomics disabled by default, at least right
> now... with the build problems on some Linuxes and the Solaris
> compatibility stuff, it's been snagging us. I don't want it to
> delay 2.0.36 if possible.
I could go for that or for a -
Maybe we should have atomics disabled by default, at least right
now... with the build problems on some Linuxes and the Solaris
compatibility stuff, it's been snagging us. I don't want it to
delay 2.0.36 if possible.
--
===
