On Tue, 6 Dec 2005, Diego Novillo wrote:
> Yes, they're collectively pretty clueless. However, in the midst of
> that /. interchange I did see one posting that made a relatively good
> point: If you go to gcc.gnu.org, you will see "Current release series:
> GCC 4.1.0".
>
> For the uninformed,
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 18:10, Diego Novillo wrote:
>
> Yes, they're collectively pretty clueless. However, in the midst of
> that /. interchange I did see one posting that made a relatively good
> point: If you go to gcc.gnu.org, you will see "Current release series:
> GCC 4.1.0".
>
> For the
On Tuesday 06 December 2005 13:00, Andrew Haley wrote:
> ... thereby maintaining the reputation for accuracy for which Slashdot
> is justly famous.
>
Yes, they're collectively pretty clueless. However, in the midst of
that /. interchange I did see one posting that made a relatively good
point:
Florian Weimer writes:
> * Richard Guenther:
>
> > What makes you think it is?
>
> I think there was some release announcement on Slashdot when the
> branch was created. 8-)
... thereby maintaining the reputation for accuracy for which Slashdot
is justly famous.
Andrew.
* Richard Guenther:
> What makes you think it is?
I think there was some release announcement on Slashdot when the
branch was created. 8-)
On 12/6/05, Jurij Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi gcc team,
>
> please mention gcc 4.1 in News/Announcements
> at
> http://gcc.gnu.org/index.html
>
> if this is an official release.
What makes you think it is? 4.1.0 is not yet released.
Richard.
