On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Stephen R Marenka wrote:
> I'm not liking the feeling that our old libc and new gcc-4.3
> (gcc-4.3_4.3.0-2) aren't getting along well.
>
> I have probably 20 failed packages, of which the following are
> representative examples.
>
> They all are compiled with -std=gnu99. It l
I'm not liking the feeling that our old libc and new gcc-4.3
(gcc-4.3_4.3.0-2) aren't getting along well.
I have probably 20 failed packages, of which the following are
representative examples.
They all are compiled with -std=gnu99. It looks like that construct
worked fine for gcc-4.2.
Anyone ca
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Kolbjørn Barmen wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > BTW, UAE in Debian works fine, but the Ubuntu one didn't work well on my
> > (64-bit) laptop: it ran way too fast, making it impossible to double-click
> > and
> > very hard to use the keyboard. AmigaOS
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Kolbjørn Barmen wrote:
> On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > BTW, UAE in Debian works fine, but the Ubuntu one didn't work well on my
> > (64-bit) laptop: it ran way too fast, making it impossible to double-click
> > and
> > very hard to use the keyboard. AmigaOS
On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> BTW, UAE in Debian works fine, but the Ubuntu one didn't work well on my
> (64-bit) laptop: it ran way too fast, making it impossible to double-click and
> very hard to use the keyboard. AmigaOS clock showed me a seconds hand
> running around like ma
5 matches
Mail list logo