On Thu, 31 May 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
Hence my suggested configure warning message. John, such a message
would be output at the end of the configure run, just like the
ok, this would make sense.
thanks
john
--
IBM's decision to choose the Intel 80x86 processor over
the Motorola 680x0
On Thu, 31 May 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
> Hence my suggested configure warning message. John, such a message
> would be output at the end of the configure run, just like the
ok, this would make sense.
thanks
john
--
"IBM's decision to choose the Intel 80x86 processor over
the Motorola 680x0
Dear me-too's,
You all use RH7.0 or RH7.1. Mike in his email stated he was using Mdk8.0
just as I currently am. The gcc-2.96-0.48 included therein ICEs on a
number of files in the LyX source tree and as (I think) John pointed out
they seem to be using a something even older than RH's 2.96-69.
Allan Rae [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| Dear me-too's,
|
| You all use RH7.0 or RH7.1. Mike in his email stated he was using Mdk8.0
| just as I currently am. The gcc-2.96-0.48 included therein ICEs on a
| number of files in the LyX source tree and as (I think) John pointed out
| they seem to be
Dear me-too's,
You all use RH7.0 or RH7.1. Mike in his email stated he was using Mdk8.0
just as I currently am. The gcc-2.96-0.48 included therein ICEs on a
number of files in the LyX source tree and as (I think) John pointed out
they seem to be using a something even older than RH's 2.96-69.
Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Dear me-too's,
|
| You all use RH7.0 or RH7.1. Mike in his email stated he was using Mdk8.0
| just as I currently am. The gcc-2.96-0.48 included therein ICEs on a
| number of files in the LyX source tree and as (I think) John pointed out
| they seem to
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
message Allan wwas responding to snipped
Actually we could perhaps provide a warning message like:
Are you serious? GCC-2.96 is unofficial crap!
... and the current version number the mainline gcc sources claim to be is
3,1. I use 3.1
On Tuesday 29 May 2001 23:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In spite of my whining, I thought I'd sneak in an attempt to compile
Angus' natbib branch, since he went to the effort to merge it with the
latest main CVS branch. I cruise along okay until I get smacked with the
following:
Returning to
Allan Rae [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On Wed, 30 May 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
|
| On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
| I'm not sure if that file will include additional patches from vendor.
| If not, they're using a totally broken optimiser. I never got a response
| on whether we
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!
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
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!
|
| But of course I_run Gcc 2.96 will all RH patches applied.
|
|
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
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
I'm not sure if that file will include additional patches from vendor.
If not, they're using a totally broken optimiser. I never got a response
on whether we should
On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, Duncan Simpson wrote:
Are you serious? GCC-2.96 is unofficial crap!
... and the current version number the mainline gcc sources claim to be is
3,1. I use 3.1 regularly and have the CVS version of gcc 2.95.x for cases when
gcc 3.x dumps core. gcc 2.96
On 30 May 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
|
| Are you serious? GCC-2.96 is unofficial crap!
And I still do not agree... Gcc 2.96 are working close to flawlessly
for me. And a lot better than 2.95.2...
err, bull. Or perhaps you don't remember a few weeks back when lyx
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 30 May 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
|
| |
| | Are you serious? GCC-2.96 is unofficial crap!
|
| And I still do not agree... Gcc 2.96 are working close to flawlessly
| for me. And a lot better than 2.95.2...
|
| err, bull.
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
On Tuesday 29 May 2001 23:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In spite of my whining, I thought I'd sneak in an attempt to compile
Angus' natbib branch, since he went to the effort to merge it with the
latest main CVS branch. I cruise along okay until I
On 30 May 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
I remember... the excat reason was never really discovered. Since we
failed to come up with a small test case (LyX failes is not one...),
we can't really know what was wrong. My guess is till that we do
something wrong in LyX that
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| you /clearly/ ignored my mail indicating the broken behaviour in the
| particular part of tabular.C then.
No, I saw that. But I didn't see a testcase that exibited this error.
But sure something was wrong with gcc.
| Never mind, a stupid flamewar
| about
On 31 May 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| you /clearly/ ignored my mail indicating the broken behaviour in the
| particular part of tabular.C then.
No, I saw that. But I didn't see a testcase that exibited this error.
OK. I spent some
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I believe so yes. I encountered the problem with the latest 7.0
| rpm (-69) and confirmed it fixed in rawhide. Upgrading to 7.1 is certainly
| a solution, but bear in mind it costs money to do so (and I can't afford
| a spare 5 pounds after a quite
On 31 May 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| I believe so yes. I encountered the problem with the latest 7.0
| rpm (-69) and confirmed it fixed in rawhide. Upgrading to 7.1 is certainly
| a solution, but bear in mind it costs money to do so
John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
| On 31 May 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
|
| John Levon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|
| | I believe so yes. I encountered the problem with the latest 7.0
| | rpm (-69) and confirmed it fixed in rawhide. Upgrading to 7.1 is certainly
| |
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 02:43:02AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| because downloading it via a 56k connection isn't an option :)
To paraphrase Mr. Tannenbaum:
Never underestimate the bandwith of a bag full of floppydisks
(or alternatively, harddisks or CD's)
There's always
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 02:43:02AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
|
| because downloading it via a 56k connection isn't an option :)
To paraphrase Mr. Tannenbaum:
Never underestimate the bandwith of a bag full of floppydisks
(or
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
> Actually we could perhaps provide a warning message like:
>
> Are you serious? GCC-2.96 is unofficial crap!
>
... and the current version number the mainline gcc sources claim to be is
3,1. I use 3.1 regularly and have the CVS version of gcc
On Tuesday 29 May 2001 23:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In spite of my whining, I thought I'd sneak in an attempt to compile
> Angus' natbib branch, since he went to the effort to merge it with the
> latest main CVS branch. I cruise along okay until I get smacked with the
> following:
Returning
Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Wed, 30 May 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
|
| > On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
| > > I'm not sure if that file will include additional patches from vendor.
| > > If not, they're using a totally broken optimiser. I never got a response
| > > on whether
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!
> 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
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!
|
| > But of course I_run Gcc 2.96 will all RH patches applied.
|
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...
> |
> |
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
> > > I'm not sure if that file will include additional patches from vendor.
> > > If not, they're using a totally broken optimiser. I never got a response
> > > on whether
On Sat, 3 Jan 1998, Duncan Simpson wrote:
> >
> > Are you serious? GCC-2.96 is unofficial crap!
> >
>
> ... and the current version number the mainline gcc sources claim to be is
> 3,1. I use 3.1 regularly and have the CVS version of gcc 2.95.x for cases when
> gcc 3.x dumps core. gcc
On 30 May 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
> |
> | Are you serious? GCC-2.96 is unofficial crap!
>
> And I still do not agree... Gcc 2.96 are working close to flawlessly
> for me. And a lot better than 2.95.2...
err, bull. Or perhaps you don't remember a few weeks back when
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 30 May 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > |
| > | Are you serious? GCC-2.96 is unofficial crap!
| >
| > And I still do not agree... Gcc 2.96 are working close to flawlessly
| > for me. And a lot better than 2.95.2...
|
| err,
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Angus Leeming wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 May 2001 23:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In spite of my whining, I thought I'd sneak in an attempt to compile
> > Angus' natbib branch, since he went to the effort to merge it with the
> > latest main CVS branch. I cruise along okay
On 30 May 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
> I remember... the excat reason was never really discovered. Since we
> failed to come up with a small test case (LyX failes is not one...),
> we can't really know what was wrong. My guess is till that we do
> something wrong in LyX that
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| you /clearly/ ignored my mail indicating the broken behaviour in the
| particular part of tabular.C then.
No, I saw that. But I didn't see a testcase that exibited this error.
But sure something was wrong with gcc.
| Never mind, a stupid flamewar
|
On 31 May 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | you /clearly/ ignored my mail indicating the broken behaviour in the
> | particular part of tabular.C then.
>
> No, I saw that. But I didn't see a testcase that exibited this error.
OK. I
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I believe so yes. I encountered the problem with the latest 7.0
| rpm (-69) and confirmed it fixed in rawhide. Upgrading to 7.1 is certainly
| a solution, but bear in mind it costs money to do so (and I can't afford
| a spare 5 pounds after a quite
On 31 May 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | I believe so yes. I encountered the problem with the latest 7.0
> | rpm (-69) and confirmed it fixed in rawhide. Upgrading to 7.1 is certainly
> | a solution, but bear in mind it costs money
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On 31 May 2001, Lars Gullik [iso-8859-1] Bjønnes wrote:
|
| > John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | I believe so yes. I encountered the problem with the latest 7.0
| > | rpm (-69) and confirmed it fixed in rawhide. Upgrading to 7.1 is
On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 02:43:02AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> |
> | because downloading it via a 56k connection isn't an option :)
>
> To paraphrase Mr. Tannenbaum:
>
> "Never underestimate the bandwith of a bag full of floppydisks"
> (or alternatively, harddisks or CD's)
There's
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Kayvan A. Sylvan wrote:
> On Thu, May 31, 2001 at 02:43:02AM +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> > |
> > | because downloading it via a 56k connection isn't an option :)
> >
> > To paraphrase Mr. Tannenbaum:
> >
> > "Never underestimate the bandwith of a bag full of
In spite of my whining, I thought I'd sneak in an attempt to compile
Angus' natbib branch, since he went to the effort to merge it with the
latest main CVS branch. I cruise along okay until I get smacked with the
following:
g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../src -I./../ -I../.. -I../..
On Tue, 29 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a Mandrake 8.0 OS with gcc-2.96. Let me know if I'm doing something
Mandrake 8.0 comes with some version of RH gcc 2.96 ? Yuck !
What's the RPM version ? I wonder which RH version it's based on. Any RH7.0 gcc
will miscompile lyx sometimes.
On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a Mandrake 8.0 OS with gcc-2.96. Let me know if I'm doing something
Mandrake 8.0 comes with some version of RH gcc 2.96 ? Yuck !
What's the RPM version ? I wonder which RH version it's based on. Any
On Tue, 29 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a Mandrake 8.0 OS with gcc-2.96. Let me know if I'm doing something
Mandrake 8.0 comes with some version of RH gcc 2.96 ? Yuck !
What's the RPM
On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's a Mandrake 8.0 OS with gcc-2.96. Let me know if I'm doing something
Mandrake 8.0 comes with some
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
I'm not sure if that file will include additional patches from vendor.
If not, they're using a totally broken optimiser. I never got a response
on whether we should disable optimisation on gcc 2.96 or not ??
In spite of my whining, I thought I'd sneak in an attempt to compile
Angus' natbib branch, since he went to the effort to merge it with the
latest main CVS branch. I cruise along okay until I get smacked with the
following:
g++ -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I../../src -I./../ -I../.. -I../..
On Tue, 29 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> It's a Mandrake 8.0 OS with gcc-2.96. Let me know if I'm doing something
Mandrake 8.0 comes with some version of RH gcc 2.96 ? Yuck !
What's the RPM version ? I wonder which RH version it's based on. Any RH7.0 gcc
will miscompile lyx sometimes.
On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > It's a Mandrake 8.0 OS with gcc-2.96. Let me know if I'm doing something
>
> Mandrake 8.0 comes with some version of RH gcc 2.96 ? Yuck !
> What's the RPM version ? I wonder which RH version it's based on.
On Tue, 29 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
> > On Tue, 29 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > It's a Mandrake 8.0 OS with gcc-2.96. Let me know if I'm doing something
> >
> > Mandrake 8.0 comes with some version of RH gcc 2.96 ? Yuck !
> >
On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
> > > On Tue, 29 May 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's a Mandrake 8.0 OS with gcc-2.96. Let me know if I'm doing something
> > >
> > > Mandrake 8.0
On Wed, 30 May 2001, Allan Rae wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001, John Levon wrote:
> > I'm not sure if that file will include additional patches from vendor.
> > If not, they're using a totally broken optimiser. I never got a response
> > on whether we should disable optimisation on gcc 2.96 or not
56 matches
Mail list logo
