Re: Unparsable gcc version string? [WAS: lily 1.4.15]
Glenn Maynard <email@example.com> writes:
> I'm not suggesting compiler bugs should be supported; I'm generally
> against that. It's not your problem if people have broken compilers
> (even if they can't upgrade them), and I'm not suggesting people go out
> of their way for that case, any more than I'd suggest working around the
> version bug you're dealing with now.
Ok. But still. If you say you're ANSI C++, people won't install gcc
if *I* say that their compiler is buggy. Demanding gcc has been a
very good choice.
> Even if you only care about G++, using feature tests is more effective
> than version tests, since it's far more likely to simply work with newer
> versions of the compiler (and libraries) that you havn't got to yet.
Yes. But it's also a lot more work. Patches appreciated.
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <firstname.lastname@example.org> | GNU LilyPond - The music typesetter
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jantien | http://www.lilypond.org
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org