RE: [sigc] Abandoning gcc 2.96?

[Murray Cumming Comneon com]

Sorry, I mean gcc 2.9*. Actually, I mean gcc <3.2, but I think 3.0/3.1 was
short-lived.

Murray Cumming
www.murrayc.com
murrayc usa net

> -----Original Message-----
> From: libsigc-list-admin gnome org 
> [mailto:libsigc-list-admin gnome org] On Behalf Of Ulrich Eckhardt
> Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2004 16:27
> To: libsigc-list gnome org
> Cc: gtkmm-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: [sigc] Abandoning gcc 2.96?
> 
> 
> On Monday 05 January 2004 16:34, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
> > Libsigc++ 2 does not build with gcc 2.96. So if we use it in gtkmm 
> > Libsigc++ 2.4,
> > gtkmm will also not be able to use gcc 2.96.
> > 
> > Who needs gcc 2.96 and why?
> 
http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-2.96.html

Else, I saw those atrocities on Redhat and also recently on a Suse Alpha. I 
think both have the option to upgrade to a real GCC.

One question, what about gcc 2.95? Is it anywhere near usability?

just my EUR 0.02

Uli

_______________________________________________
libsigc-list mailing list
libsigc-list gnome org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/libsigc-list