Oops! [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("Mohan, Ross") was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> I have 2.53, yes.
>
> But, I am going to rebuild and re-AC this, so need
> to build m4 (1.4.3) in order to get to 2.59 of AConf.
>
> Any reasons to strongly advocate or avoid forcing
> compiler into strict ANSI/C99 or IS
Mohan, Ross wrote:
> Any reasons to strongly advocate or avoid forcing
> compiler into strict ANSI/C99 or ISO C mode? I had
> to do that to get m4 to compile. I'd like to stay
> on a single track (ANSI compliant or not) with all
> builds.
If you need to build m4 then you should ask there on how to
On Tue, 2005-05-24 at 19:48 +0200, Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> Am Dienstag, den 24.05.2005, 13:49 -0300 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > It will be a very pleasant idea. Although I am
> > an application developer I don't know if I have
> > enough knowledge to do that. Do you know how could
> > I help t
I have 2.53, yes.
But, I am going to rebuild and re-AC this, so need
to build m4 (1.4.3) in order to get to 2.59 of AConf.
Any reasons to strongly advocate or avoid forcing
compiler into strict ANSI/C99 or ISO C mode? I had
to do that to get m4 to compile. I'd like to stay
on a single track (A
I have a kernel version problem: 2.6.10 and 2.6.11 are much slower
than 2.6.9 in Fedora Core 3 within a certain function.
One machine runs 8.03, 512 MB, XP2100.
Times: 2.6.11 and 2.6.10 - 83 minutes. 2.6.9 - 32 minutes
In another FC3 machine, 8.0.1, 1 GB, P4 2.4, the times are 35 and 5
minutes re
