Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 17:38:42 -0500 (EST) From: Peter Dufault <dufault@hda.com> To: bmah@cs.Berkeley.EDU Cc: nate@sri.MT.net, mheller@student.uni-kl.de, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Q: Somebody working on more recent binutils ? Message-ID: <199602142238.RAA25543@hda.com> In-Reply-To: <199602141814.KAA24558@premise.CS.Berkeley.EDU> from "Bruce A. Mah" at Feb 14, 96 10:14:35 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Another data point: I'm working on a very large IP-over-ATM network simulator > (~26,000 lines of C++). To date, I've seen identical results on my DEC Alpha > at work (Digital UNIX 3.2, g++ 2.7.2) and my PC at home (FreeBSD > 2.1.0-RELEASE, g++ 2.7.2 with "no .weak symbol" patch). So far, no > indications of compiler malfunctions. > I've since done a fair amount of testing, including in the places where I believe the previous multiple definitions were, and it seems OK. Not the definitive answer, but it looks good. -- Peter Dufault Real-Time Machine Control and Simulation HD Associates, Inc. Voice: 508 433 6936 dufault@hda.com Fax: 508 433 5267
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602142238.RAA25543>