Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 14:50:00 +0300 From: Valentin Nechayev <netch@iv.nn.kiev.ua> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8 Message-ID: <20030531114959.GA324@iv.nn.kiev.ua> In-Reply-To: <xzpwug7lbhx.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0305221020170.82473-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> <20030528231134.GE23471@spc.org> <xzpr86ib50f.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <200305301727.06623.wes@softweyr.com> <xzpr86g2b9y.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <20030531073141.GA5288@iv.nn.kiev.ua> <xzpwug7lbhx.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sat, May 31, 2003 at 11:19:06, des (Dag-Erling Smorgrav) wrote about "Re: gcc bug? Openoffice port impossibel to compile on 4.8": >> Essential words are understriked. I can't imagine how it can be read >> as "unsupported". DES> I didn't use the word "unsupported", I said "deprecated". Yes. But your message was reply to Wes Peters' one with the following: wp> Funny, the last time I looked at a C language specification they were wp> still supported. Your citation says they are supported, in spite of any deprecation. -netch-
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030531114959.GA324>