Hi Mark
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote:
> > The statistics become much higher when you realize that:
> > 1. Redhat wants to change the buggy 2.96 compiler (which actually has about
> > 5 versions I am ware of that they refuse to admit or tag as different
> > versions).
Please get some
Mark Veltzer wrote:
>-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Wednesday 25 September 2002 12:32, you wrote:
>
>
>>the statistical chance that such a case will happen, is
>>almost zero. So when it happens, it's exciting.
>>
>>
>
>The statistics become much higher when you realize
Eli Marmor wrote:
>I'd like to bring the attention of readers who are not aware of that,
>that both of the leading(*) Linux disros are going to release major
>versions in the following days (it seems that the Goyim adopted the
>Jewish/Hebrew saying "acharei HaChagim"...).
>
>With a new version on
OG>> Well, I have compiled all sorts of C and C++ stuff on a daily basis
OG>> with all the versions released and haven't encountered any problems
Which doesn't say it is not buggy. Actually, I *know* it *is* buggy,
because I had pretty simple C code that it miscompiles (or, more
precisely, misopt
Mark Veltzer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Do you notice anything wrong with the previous statement ?!?
Mark, with all due respect - are you trolling? OK, I'll feed you, even
though the subject has been beaten to death elsewhere. Red Hat made an
important and informed decision (NB: this is not t
> Do you notice anything wrong with the previous statement ?!?
> gcc-2.96-112. First - prey tell how can you tell the version aparts ? (the
> first I don't know how many versions didn't have ANY identification).
umm, gcc -v?
hetz]$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.9
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 18:01, you wrote:
> Wrong in both terms:
>
> 1. GCC 2.96 to me seems very stable these days - and I have more then
> enough compile expirience with it (I use 2.96 only up until few days ago).
> It had few problems when
> The statistics become much higher when you realize that:
> 1. Redhat wants to change the buggy 2.96 compiler (which actually has about
> 5 versions I am ware of that they refuse to admit or tag as different
> versions). 2. Mandrake is compatible to RH (meaning Mandrake want you to be
> able to i
Ely Levy wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Eli Marmor wrote:
>
> > I'd like to bring the attention of readers who are not aware of that,
> > that both of the leading(*) Linux disros are going to release major
> > versions in the following days (it seems that the Goyim adopted the
> > Jewish/Hebrew
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 25 September 2002 12:32, you wrote:
> the statistical chance that such a case will happen, is
> almost zero. So when it happens, it's exciting.
The statistics become much higher when you realize that:
1. Redhat wants to change the buggy
On Wed, 25 Sep 2002, Eli Marmor wrote:
> I'd like to bring the attention of readers who are not aware of that,
> that both of the leading(*) Linux disros are going to release major
> versions in the following days (it seems that the Goyim adopted the
> Jewish/Hebrew saying "acharei HaChagim"...).
I'd like to bring the attention of readers who are not aware of that,
that both of the leading(*) Linux disros are going to release major
versions in the following days (it seems that the Goyim adopted the
Jewish/Hebrew saying "acharei HaChagim"...).
With a new version once per half a year, and a
12 matches
Mail list logo
