On Mon, Dec 10, 2001 at 09:55:54AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | Is there a possibility to build LyX outside the source tree like gcc does?
> | This way one could configure with 2.95 and 3.0 without a full
> | 20-minute-recompile...
>
> Why haven't you just tried to do it?
Because asking
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 01:46:12AM +, John Levon wrote:
> But there are more important concerns right now: namely the Bad GC problem.
>
> I just built a clean build with gcc 3.0.2. I can't get that to crash. Given
> the debugging info (unfortunately watch takes forever to run :()
> it might
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 03:54:04AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> map
>
> would work.
yeah, that's much cleaner ...
> but it will not use less memory, and most likely not be faster (more
> likely slover since the comparison function will be more complet.)
... but I wasn't thinking: it is
On Sat, Dec 08, 2001 at 03:28:02AM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> | a bit. Even better would be to implement the hash table properly rather
> | than so half-heartedly ...
>
> but is it really a hash table? I think not. It is more a lazy
> evaluated/generated index table.
mmm, with the poss
On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 11:52:37PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> would
>
> int index lw + (ls << 1) + (c << 6);
>
> suit you better?
a bit. Even better would be to implement the hash table properly rather
than so half-heartedly ...
But there are more important concerns right now
