%% "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jg> Will this release be ISO C90 GNU Make? With other packages such
jg> as binutils standardising on C90 I am interested to know if
jg> anything is in the pipeline plan for Make.
>> "C90" GNU make? Is "C90" some shorthand for some version of the
jg> Will this release be ISO C90 GNU Make? With other packages such
jg> as binutils standardising on C90 I am interested to know if
jg> anything is in the pipeline plan for Make.
"C90" GNU make? Is "C90" some shorthand for some version of the POSIX
standard I'm unaware of? I thought "C90"
%% "J. Grant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jg> Will this release be ISO C90 GNU Make? With other packages such
jg> as binutils standardising on C90 I am interested to know if
jg> anything is in the pipeline plan for Make.
"C90" GNU make? Is "C90" some shorthand for some version of the POSI
Hello,
Will this release be ISO C90 GNU Make? With other packages such as
binutils standardising on C90 I am interested to know if anything is in
the pipeline plan for Make.
Best regards
JG
on the 18/01/04 21:46, Noel Yap wrote:
Will this release include the distributed make feature? If not, w
Will this release include the distributed make feature? If not, when do you think
this will be incorporated?
Thanks,
Noel
"Paul D. Smith" wrote:
>
> %% "Dr. Jörn von Holten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> jvh> I'm currently using 3.81rc1 (taken from CVS) and I'm quite
> jvh> satisfied.
%% "Dr. Jörn von Holten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
jvh> I'm currently using 3.81rc1 (taken from CVS) and I'm quite
jvh> satisfied. Astonishing that there are still major distributors
jvh> that deliver 3.79.1 as default version. Can you give an idea,
jvh> when 3.81 can be expected? A cu
Paul,
I'm currently using 3.81rc1 (taken from CVS) and I'm quite satisfied.
Astonishing that there are still major distributors that deliver 3.79.1 as
default version. Can you give an idea, when 3.81 can be expected?
A customer of mine is hesitating a bit to use a non-public version of
make (3.8
