Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [ should this move to guile-devel? ]
I CC'd there, at least.
> > "Martin" == Martin Grabmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Martin> (1) We could change the build stuff to fire up Guile once,
> Martin> and snarf all .x and .doc files in
[ should this move to guile-devel? ]
> "Martin" == Martin Grabmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Martin> (1) We could change the build stuff to fire up Guile once,
Martin> and snarf all .x and .doc files in one run. That would
Martin> probably break incremental building, though
> From: Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 23 Mar 2001 09:07:32 +
>
> > "Neil" == Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Alexander" == Alexander Klimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Alexander> The change which broke guile documentation is that
> Alexander> [...]
> "Neil" == Neil Jerram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Alexander" == Alexander Klimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexander> The change which broke guile documentation is that
Alexander> [...]
Neil> I'm planning to try fixing this, mainly this Friday.
Hmm... This is harder
> "Alexander" == Alexander Klimov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Alexander> The change which broke guile documentation is that [...]
I'm planning to try fixing this, mainly this Friday. So if anyone
else is already working on it, or has similar plans, please let me
know.
Regards,
On Mon, 12 Mar 2001, Alexander Klimov wrote:
> The makeinfo is the same, so it looks like reason is guile-doc-snarf, and
> more specifically "gcc -E" in it. I'll try to look what is the problem
> exactly.
In the new version of gcc the preprocessor is greatly changed (mostly
due to merging it with
