[delayed by a mail bounce]
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Should we still support GCC 2.95?
It's still in current debian unstable, so it's not totally dead.
Using it guards against some c99-isms (local variables in the middle
of functions) so it has some use for development.
>
Hi,
Marius Vollmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should we still support GCC 2.95?
If it's not too costly (in terms of necessary workarounds), perhaps we
should. Some people argue that GCC 2.95 is still very useful notably
because it's much faster that newer GCCs (and that will certainly always
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Should we still support GCC 2.95?
>
> It's still in current debian unstable, so it's not totally dead.
I had the impression it is only there for compiling old Linux
kernels...
> Using it guards against some c99-isms (local variables in the middle
> of fu
Kevin Ryde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I added the code below to the inline scm_is_pair. The comment should
> be self-explanatory. Notice it's deliberately confined to just 2.95,
> whatever the problem is it doesn't seem to afflict the current gcc 4.
There was a similar issue in scm_ithrow, i
I added the code below to the inline scm_is_pair. The comment should
be self-explanatory. Notice it's deliberately confined to just 2.95,
whatever the problem is it doesn't seem to afflict the current gcc 4.
--- inline.h.~1.30.2.1.~2006-02-14 08:58:58.0 +1100
+++ inline.h2006
