In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Collins writes: >Don't discount sparc just because the code is broken. That's a bug in >itself. Fix the code, get it to compile. SPARC is one of the most tested >archs we have, so if it is broken there, you have some serious issues >anyway, and covering it by not building on sparc is not the answer. > >I don't do C++, so you'll have to ask some experts.
G++ 2.95 is pretty broken in its own right. Just because it won't compile something doesn't necessarily mean that the source is at fault. I wouldn't regard it as unreasonable for C++ programs to require 3.0 these days. p.
