Antony Bowers wrote:
> 2. A few code modifications are needed where the Pro64 C++ source is not
> standards conforming (the new gcc is a bit closer to enforcing the
> language standard).
Well, care to send in some diffs (or at least pointers to what needs to
be fixed)? The Party Line (as I understand it) is that Pro64 is written
in standard C++ but if the reality doesn't live up to it, well,
maybe we can fix that.
> I'd prefer to avoid the forked version of gcc 2.96 that comes with Red Hat
> 7.0; that compiler is rumoured to be buggy and is surely no less doomed to
> obsolescence than 2.95.
Shrug. If you apply
http://www.redhat.com/support/errata/RHBA-2000-132.html
I'm not sure it is as buggy as the rumors say. But I don't think we've
been
using it for Pro64, so I'm not sure there is any particular reason to go
with that version.
|