Re: gcc 2.95 support

[Kjartan Maraas <kmaraas broadpark no>]

s?, 25.05.2003 kl. 21.58 skrev Owen Taylor:
> On Sun, 2003-05-25 at 15:31, Manuel Clos wrote:
> > Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > > They're simply bugs. The same kind of thing happens with endian issue
> > > (although to a lesser extent). Do like everybody else, fix the bugs...
> > 
> > The amount of work involved is not proportional to the bug.
> > 
> > See the bug. Save the original file. Modify the file. Compile to check. 
> > Check bonsai to see if the bug is still present or the developer already 
> > patched it. Check bugzilla to see if someone already opened a bug and 
> > sent a patch. If not, make a diff, open a new bug, attach the simple diff.
> 
> A patch for this type of stuff isn't necessary. And as long as you
> are using the most recently released version, it isn't necessary
> to check CVS. Dup'ing bugs like this when they occur isn't a 
> time consuming activity.
> 
> Just go to bugzilla.gnome.org/enter_bug.cgi, file a new bug:
> 
>  Bad variable declaration at foo.c line 69
> 
>  There's a variable not at the beginning of the block at
>  line 69 of foo.c
> 
> click submit. Shouldn't take more than 45 seconds.
> 
> > Isn't it more easy that developers compile using -C97 or whatever?
> 
> There is a potential danger with that in that GLib will
> in some cases use C99 constructs when available and have fallbacks
> for lesser compilers. And other modules may do the same.
> 
> If you file the bugs, people will learn what to avoid.
> 
Just wanted to say that 2.2.x builds cleanly from CVS with my RH 7.2
setup.

There were a few snags earlier, but they were patched a while ago.

Cheers
Kjartan