On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 04:56:15PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:13:14AM -0500, Steve Peters wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 01:37:24PM +0200, Ron Blaschke wrote:
While poking the GCC documentation I found that there's a feature
available to limit the exported
While poking the GCC documentation I found that there's a feature
available to limit the exported symbols (with GCC = 3.3). Maybe worth
considering?
It's probably a design decision. If there's an option to limit the
exported symbols or make all available, which one should be taken?
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 01:37:24PM +0200, Ron Blaschke wrote:
While poking the GCC documentation I found that there's a feature
available to limit the exported symbols (with GCC = 3.3). Maybe worth
considering?
It's probably a design decision. If there's an option to limit the
exported
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:13:14AM -0500, Steve Peters wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 01:37:24PM +0200, Ron Blaschke wrote:
While poking the GCC documentation I found that there's a feature
available to limit the exported symbols (with GCC = 3.3). Maybe worth
considering?
It's probably
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:13:14AM -0500, Steve Peters wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 01:37:24PM +0200, Ron Blaschke wrote:
While poking the GCC documentation I found that there's a feature
available to limit the exported symbols (with GCC = 3.3). Maybe worth
considering?
It's probably
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 04:56:15PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:13:14AM -0500, Steve Peters wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 01:37:24PM +0200, Ron Blaschke wrote:
While poking the GCC documentation I found that there's a feature
available to limit the exported
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 04:56:15PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:13:14AM -0500, Steve Peters wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 01:37:24PM +0200, Ron Blaschke wrote:
While poking the GCC documentation I found that there's a feature
available to
On Apr 12, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 09:13:14AM -0500, Steve Peters wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 01:37:24PM +0200, Ron Blaschke wrote:
I think that we need to tread very carefully with adding additional
gcc-isms to Parrot, lest we break compatibility
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 01:50:09PM -0500, Joshua Isom wrote:
On Apr 12, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
My view of this is something along these lines. You can use any
function you want at all, but if it's not documented as part of the
supported API, there's nothing saying I
On 4/12/07, Nicholas Clark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 01:50:09PM -0500, Joshua Isom wrote:
On Apr 12, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
My view of this is something along these lines. You can use any
function you want at all, but if it's not documented as part
On Apr 12, 2007, at 1:54 PM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 01:50:09PM -0500, Joshua Isom wrote:
On Apr 12, 2007, at 9:29 AM, Nicholas Clark wrote:
My view of this is something along these lines. You can use any
function you want at all, but if it's not documented as part
Nicholas Clark wrote:
On the other hand, we've managed very well in Perl 5 with the flag data in
embed.fnc and generating the annotated headers programmatically.
Interesting. I quite like this.
Nicholas Clark
Ron
12 matches
Mail list logo
