drk@twinkie.Rational.COM (David Kaelbling) (02/15/90)
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...
--
David Kaelbling (408) 496-3600
c/o Rational; 3320 Scott Boulevard; Santa Clara, CA 95054-3197
Email: drk@Rational.COM, or uucp {uunet,ubvax,amdcad,aeras}!igor!drkkit@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Chris D. Peterson) (02/15/90)
> 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
casey@gauss.llnl.gov (Casey Leedom) (02/17/90)
The recently released version of GCC, 1.37, does NOT contain the "..." == 0 ? exp1 : exp2 bug exposed by the XtNewString macro. GCC 1.37 also seems to be fairly reliable in general, but I haven't recompiled all of R4 with it yet ... Casey