On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:30:00PM +0100, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > The need for gcc-2.95 usually means the source code is broken (in C99 > terms) and should be fixed. Do you have an example of an use case where > this is unfeasible, and which is important enough to justify continued > maintenance of gcc 2.95? It was relatively common to find C++ code that wouldn't build with the new C++ front end in GCC 3.0. -- "You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature