Mike W. Baranski writes:
> Not trying to step on any toes... I was told (awhile back) by Sinsa that
> mysql++ did not work with gcc 2.96 that redhat released b/c that version
> of gcc was not a gcc "release" and therefore not really supported by the
> gcc people. He also implied that this was a p
On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Mike W. Baranski wrote:
> Not trying to step on any toes... I was told (awhile back) by Sinsa that
> mysql++ did not work with gcc 2.96 that redhat released b/c that version
> of gcc was not a gcc "release" and therefore not really supported by the
> gcc people. He also impl
Not trying to step on any toes... I was told (awhile back) by Sinsa that
mysql++ did not work with gcc 2.96 that redhat released b/c that version
of gcc was not a gcc "release" and therefore not really supported by the
gcc people. He also implied that this was a problem with gcc, and when
gcc was
"Mike Baranski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Does mysql++ work any better with gcc 3.0 than it did with 2.96 (The
> RedHat "release" (I use the term loosly)).
2.96RH is working very well, thank you - it's was the best compiler
available (performance, bugs, standards compliance) until gcc 3 was
Mike Baranski writes:
> Does mysql++ work any better with gcc 3.0 than it did with 2.96 (The RedHat
>"release" (I use the term loosly)).
>
> M
There are actually 2.96 releases that work just fine with MySQL++
1.7.9, such as 2.96-67.
Regarding 3.0 I have a patch that helps builld and run MySQL
Does mysql++ work any better with gcc 3.0 than it did with 2.96 (The RedHat "release"
(I use the term loosly)).
M
-
Before posting, please check:
http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual)
http://lists.mysql.com/
