>>>>> "Duncan" == Duncan Simpson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Duncan> gcc --dumpversion says 3.1, which is less informative than gcc Duncan> --version which says gcc (GCC) 3.1 20020225 (experimental). Duncan> Knwong exactly which version of a bleeding edge compiler you Duncan> are using is not a bad idea. head is inexpensive Duncan> bulletproofing anyway, and bullet proofing is probably a good Duncan> thing :-) Yes, but 3.1 is what we want for our use (set the right compile options). We do not want to have special code to address specific bugs in specific gcc experimental versions, anyway. Do you know whether gcc 2.95.x supports -dump-version? Duncan> I seem to have a plain grpahics crash if I try and load the Duncan> LyX user guide (a really ancient document compatiblitiy test Duncan> on my box). Document withouts graphics seem to work, but I Duncan> would urge caution. Please report it to lyx-devel. Actually, I added lyx-devel in cc:. >> I thik libtool takes care of this if it believes it needs it. And >> not that we used to build static libraries, but switched to partial >> linking (ld -r), which seems to greatly reduce link time and disk >> footprint. >> Duncan> I have been burned doing ld -r on solaris, although exactly Duncan> why was never clear. Static libraries worked fine that time. We would certainly be interested by details... JMarc
