Previous mail
Next mail
Unformatted/full headers
Overview 10 days
Subject
Date
Thread
Author
From: Neil Santos
Subject: cgp? (was: GP ;-)
Date: 31 May 2004, 01:29:14
On 15:34 30/05/04, Frank Heckenbach wrote: > output etc.). If we teach "GP" to pass `-lm -lgpc', we could get rid > of the separate gpc executable and call "GP" gpc. But I'm not sure > if everybody would be comfortable with such a change ... Here's my take on this issue: When GPC is merged into GCC--where `soon' is barely soon enough (and I think I speak for the majority)--and when, as you have already speculated in your previous post, the gpc executable becomes unnecessary, then people will have to deal with it, whether they'd like to or not. Soo... I guess what I'm trying to say here is, when the Merge happens, renaming GP's executable into `gpc' won't be a problem.
Previous mail
Next mail
Unformatted/full headers
Overview 10 days
Subject
Date
Thread
Author
Note: This page contains information that does not originate from the owner of this web site, but from the authors of the mails archived. The owner of this web site is not responsible for the content of such information. Any use of that infomation requires the consent of the respective author.
Where WWW addresses (URLs) in the mails archived are marked as hyperlinks, this is only for the comfort of the reader. The content of the web pages linked to like this does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the owner of this web site or of the authors of the mails archived. The owner of this web site is not responsible for the content of such web pages. Those pages are explicitly not to be considered as part of the content of this page, but merely as references.
This page was created by Crystal 0.999 (Linux 2.4.27/i686).