> > A program that works is much more useful than a faster program that > doesn't. If that's true for you, then why bother even using C at all? Joe -- To unsubscribe: mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Trond Eivind Glomsrød
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? JF Martinez
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Alan Shutko
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Alan Shutko
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Alan Shutko
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Joseph Malicki
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Alan Cox
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? John Summerfield
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Alan Cox
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Trond Eivind Glomsrød
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Thomas Dodd
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Steven Boswell
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Julie
- Re: Why no i586/i686 support? Chris Abbey