Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:30:00PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > > > The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99 > > terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where > > this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued > > maintenance of gcc 2.95? > > It was relatively common to find C++ code that wouldn't build with the > new C++ front end in GCC 3.0.
Is there one left today? (Does this mean it is dead upstream?) Thiemo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
