Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
>> Allan Rae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> >> | Despite that, it seems to be more and more necessary for LyX
>> >> | developers _and users_ to be using gcc-cvs rather than
>> >> | gcc-some-recent-release if they want to compile LyX!
>> >>
>> >> Bullshit!
>> >>
>> >> Please try to backup that claim.
>> >
>> | You said yourself in an earlier email how 3.1 is the compiler we
>> | should be using. And how 3.2 will have some wonderful new template
>> | code that reduces overhead by a factor of 5. Likewise, you are also
>> | claiming that the only compilers worth using with exceptions is gcc >
>> | 3.0. You are similarly calling 2.96 a non-compiler or at least a
>> | compiler everyone should avoid.
>>
>> Please go back and reread my messages... it sees that you only glanced
>> at them the first time.
>
| I read the last two weeks worth of emails in three days. Maybe you
| didn't use those words but they are certainly the general impression I
| got from them. And no I didn't just glance at those messages -- the
| threads with arguements about boost, compilers and such (the same
| topic as this thread) were the ones I paid most attention to.
"...or at least a compiler everyone should avoid."
Is not something that I have claimed.
I have said that using gcc 2.96. for "bloat"-tuning is wrong.
Nothing about its usage as a compiler.
--
Lgb
