Article View: comp.windows.x
Article #36876Re: fix-2 gcc patch implications?
From: Chris D. Peterson
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1990 13:59
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1990 13:59
21 lines
1255 bytes
1255 bytes
> I notice that fix #2 contains a work-around for the gcc XtNewString > bug. Does this mean that gcc-1.36 or some newer release has been > blessed as "safe for those of us who don't know adb and are happy that > way"? Previous postings led me to believe that only gcc-1.35 had been > tested and was considered trustworthy... Nope, we are still using gcc version 1.35 here. We found that the XtNewString bug also occured in that version, but we just never noticed it. This is not to say that those versions don't work, just that we have not used them, and have no way of knowing what bugs might appear. X is real good as stressing compilers :-) Chris D. Peterson MIT X Consortium Net: kit@expo.lcs.mit.edu Phone: (617) 253 - 9608 Address: MIT - Room NE43-213
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<9002151359.AA11401@expo.lcs.mit.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!kitReferences:
<600@igor.Rational.COM>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!kit From: kit@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Chris D. Peterson) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: fix-2 gcc patch implications? Message-ID: <9002151359.AA11401@expo.lcs.mit.edu> Date: 15 Feb 90 13:59:36 GMT References: <600@igor.Rational.COM> Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background) Organization: The Internet Lines: 21