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

[Matthew Walton <matthew alledora co uk>]

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*?
>
> PG
>
>
> 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
> > www.murrayc.com
> > murrayc usa net
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gtkmm-list mailing list
> > gtkmm-list gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtkmm-list