[sigc] Re: [gtkmm] Abandoning gcc 2.9*?

They're written in pure C, so I very much doubt it's actually much of a problem for them unless they're using C99 which they probably aren't. It's only really C++ that this matters for, as far as I can see, because gcc 2.9* had good C support but woeful C++, which as we all know is much improved in 3.2.

So I doubt it's something that they've even thought about.

Peter Gasper wrote:

What is the gtk+ road map on this issue? I assume that if they dropped
support then gtkmm would by necessity do also. Do they have any good
reasons for continued support of 2.9*?


On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 11:28, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:

I'll ask this again, using the correct version number:

Libsigc++ 2 does not build with gcc 2.95 (or even gcc <3.2). So if we use it
in gtkmm 2.4, gtkmm will also not be able to use gcc 2.9*.

Who needs gcc 2.9* and why?

Murray Cumming
murrayc usa net

gtkmm-list mailing list
gtkmm-list gnome org

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]