Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote:
> >Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
> Use white background Xterm. Come again?
Ugh!
> One of the biggest mistakes RH ever did was happily jumping off _that_
> cliff to follow SuSE.
Colour ls predates both Red Hat and SuSE.
-- Jamie
-
To unsubscribe from this list: se
er 08, 2000 12:51 AM
Subject: Re: Why does everyone hate gcc 2.95?
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes:
>
> >Alexander Viro wrote:
> >> ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.
>
> >Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jamie Lokier) writes:
>Alexander Viro wrote:
>> ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.
>Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
Use white background Xterm. Come again?
First thing I do on _all_ RH installations is "rm /etc/profile.d/colorls*"
One of the biggest
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Is this a problem where the code produced by 2.95 was non-optimal in some
significant way or simply incorrect, or is it really just a subjective
"takes to long to compile XXX" thing?
Andrew Purtell
NAI Labs at Network Associates, Inc.
Alexander Viro wrote:
> ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing paperclip". As colourized ls.
Hey, colour ls is _useful_!
> Or --ignore-fail-on-non-empty as rmdir option. Or "let's replace config
> files with directories full of one-liners since packagers can't be arsed
> to learn sed(1)" religion. Sig
"John Anthony Kazos Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
> compiling kern els successfully (read: not one single (ever) error in
> compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the big
> deal?
GCC has traditionally been
On Tue, Oct 03, 2000 at 11:12:24PM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No, better yet,
> what is a good version to use when porting to a new processor (actually
> an old processor)? I've pulled the source to gcc (2.95.2) and binutils
> (2.10) in prep for a port to a new/old machine. If these versi
Hi there,
> I hate it because it compiles much more slowly than 2.72 and for
> my purposes,
Hm, have not checked that. Did you do benchmarks here ?
at least, the resulting code is not any faster on
> any of the following platforms: x86, SPARC, MIPS, PA-RISC, and Alpha.
Hm,
quick check of dgemm
Larry McVoy said ...
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
> > What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
> > compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
> > in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. Wh
On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Larry McVoy wrote:
> hand picked tests. No faster. Just compiles slower. Add to that
> some distributions BRAINDEAD default of havving colorgcc be the default
> compiler (can you say fork perl to fork gcc? Can you say STUPID?), and
ITYM "cute". As in "cute dancing pape
On Wed, Oct 04, 2000 at 04:28:41AM +, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:
> What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been
> compiling kernels successfully (read: not one single (ever) error
> in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for more than a year now. What's the
> big deal?
[Fix yo
What does everyone have against gcc 2.95 on this list? I've been compiling kernels
successfully (read: not one single (ever) error in compilation) with gcc 2.95.2 for
more than a year now. What's the big deal?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the bod
12 matches
Mail list logo
