On Wed, 6 April 2005 19:58:06 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote:
> On Apr 6, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Jörn Engel wrote:
> >On Wed, 6 April 2005 19:29:46 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote:
> >>
> >>I think its worth the time and trouble to take this up with the gcc
> >>crowd. So if you could provide a list of things 3.3
On Apr 6, 2005, at 7:33 PM, Jörn Engel wrote:
On Wed, 6 April 2005 19:29:46 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote:
I think its worth the time and trouble to take this up with the gcc
crowd. So if you could provide a list of things 3.3 misses, i'm sure
the gcc-crowd would like it.
If you volunteer to do work w
On Wed, 6 April 2005 19:29:46 +0200, Renate Meijer wrote:
>
> I think its worth the time and trouble to take this up with the gcc
> crowd. So if you could provide a list of things 3.3 misses, i'm sure
> the gcc-crowd would like it.
If you volunteer to do work with the gcc-crowd, I can dig up som
On Apr 6, 2005, at 5:46 PM, Greg KH wrote:
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:27:51PM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote:
Is it worth the effort? Not sure. But the "it's old, drop support
for it" argument just doesn't cut it and it doesn't get any better by
repetition.
However, the argument gets better every time "
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 02:27:51PM +0200, J?rn Engel wrote:
>
> Is it worth the effort? Not sure. But the "it's old, drop support
> for it" argument just doesn't cut it and it doesn't get any better by
> repetition.
Exactly, that's why this patch is valid.
thanks,
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe fr
5 matches
Mail list logo
