Ben Pfaff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Do you know anybody still seriously using a GCC version < 2.95 ?
>
> I do not. Is this a serious argument against doing the right
> thing?
I think the problem is that we cannot seriously test any changes here.
Also, there are probably some backward-compat
Bruno Haible <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ben Pfaff wrote:
>> I would suggest using a different identifier, but if not, then it
>> seems like the various versions should be the same, at least.
>> Some make use of __attribute__ conditional on GCC 2.5 or later,
>> others on GCC 2.8 or later. The r
Ben Pfaff wrote:
> I would suggest using a different identifier, but if not, then it
> seems like the various versions should be the same, at least.
> Some make use of __attribute__ conditional on GCC 2.5 or later,
> others on GCC 2.8 or later. The results are thus going to vary
> based on the ord
