On Tuesday 25 March 2008 10:52:16 Duncan wrote:
> ... which is why in theory no x.y.1 is ever needed, right. =8^)
Well, I was only referring to the traces I saw, which were reported to
our GCC guys here and therefore were fixed one way or another.
There will of course be so many we did not catch
Daniel Rahn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 25
Mar 2008 09:05:59 +0100:
> I had seen some segfaults with that patch some while ago, but looking at
> the backtraces, they all turned up to be compiler bugs at that time. Now
> that 4.3 is out, that should in th
On Monday 24 March 2008 03:36:22 Duncan wrote:
> FWIW, based only on a short visual scan, it looks to be doing all the
> right things based on the gcc 4.3 porting doc and my experience so
> far. So even if it doesn't happen to be workable (haven't tried it
> yet), it looks to be headed there.
We h
