On 31 March 2016 at 04:30, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On 03/16/2016 11:30 AM, Earnie wrote:
>> On 3/16/2016 4:02 AM, Václav Haisman wrote:
>>> On 15 March 2016 at 17:35, Paul Eggert wrote:
On 10/04/2012 12:41 AM, Václav Zeman wrote:
>
> Does attached patch work for you?
Foll
>> That is not a bug, it was a desired feature...
>
> Huh. How is not finding a viable compiler when one is present a desired
> feature?
+1. I kinda laughed when I read that, too.
Apparently the project has a set of goals, and breaking the
configuration and compile in some instances meets the go
On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>>> That is not a bug, it was a desired feature...
>>
>> Huh. How is not finding a viable compiler when one is present a desired
>> feature?
>
> +1. I kinda laughed when I read that, too.
>
> Apparently the project has a set of goals, and breaking th
On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> viable compiler
It will be viable when they release it under the GPL3.
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 1998
http://www.mrbrk
On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>>> That is not a bug, it was a desired feature...
>>
>> Huh. How is not finding a viable compiler when one is present a desired
>> feature?
>
> +1. I kinda laughed when I read that, too.
>
> Apparently the project has a set of goals, and breaking th
On 03/31/2016 12:49 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
That is not a bug, it was a desired feature...
>>>
>>> Huh. How is not finding a viable compiler when one is present a desired
>>> feature?
>>
>> +1. I kinda laughed when I read that, too.
>>
>> Apparen
On 03/31/2016 12:49 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
That is not a bug, it was a desired feature...
>>>
>>> Huh. How is not finding a viable compiler when one is present a desired
>>> feature?
>>
>> +1. I kinda laughed when I read that, too.
>>
>> Apparen
On 03/17/2016 07:40 AM, Václav Haisman wrote:
> makes sense to look for Clang as well as any other viable compiler.
that makes no sense.
--
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town
that Brooklyn, like Atlantis, reaches mythological
proportions in the mind of the world - RI Safir 19
On 31.3.2016 18:46, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> viable compiler
>
> It will be viable when they release it under the GPL3.
In that case, I am waiting for you to present and get through patches
that remove aCC, cl.exe, FCC, KCC, RCC, xlC_r, and xlC as well
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 07:13:18PM +0200, Václav Haisman wrote:
> On 31.3.2016 18:46, Ruben Safir wrote:
> > On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> >> viable compiler
> >
> > It will be viable when they release it under the GPL3.
>
> In that case, I am waiting for you to present and get
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 1:22 PM, Ruben Safir wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 07:13:18PM +0200, Václav Haisman wrote:
>> On 31.3.2016 18:46, Ruben Safir wrote:
>> > On 03/31/2016 12:31 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>> >> viable compiler
>> >
>> > It will be viable when they release it under the GPL3.
On 03/31/2016 12:52 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> What purpose does it serve to alienate a majority of the users from
> whom you need support to achieve your goals? That seems like it will
> take a bad situation (lack of overwhelming support for FSF ideals) and
> make it worse (aggravate more develo
Ruben Safir writes:
>> On 3/16/2016 4:02 AM, Václav Haisman wrote:
>>> Cool. I do not remember exactly if this was my motivation for the
>>> original submission but I believe this is still relevant for Cygwin
>>> where you can AFAIK install Clang and not install GCC (which creates
>>> the /usr/bi
13 matches
Mail list logo
