On Wed, 23 May 2001, Axel Thimm wrote: > > [...] may be there are some hints whether people have already tried with > > borland compilers. > > Let's hope they are reading this list and will step forward to discuss it ;) sure - Borland C is much faster, and checks for errors that gcc doesn't bother to report. But there's no point in discussing it, since people who use both compilers already have their minds set. -- T.E.Dickey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://dickey.his.com ftp://dickey.his.com
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Tom Tromey
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Harlan Stenn
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Tom Tromey
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Rasmus Tamstorf
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Tom Tromey
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Rasmus Tamstorf
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Ralf Corsepius
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Peter Eisentraut
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Tom Tromey
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Axel Thimm
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Thomas E. Dickey
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Axel Thimm
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Tom Tromey
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Martin Hollmichel
- Re: Auto-tools & Win32 & Borland C++ Builder Paul F. Kunz