"Aaron M. Renn" wrote:
> It works for me no problem. I do get bazillions of warnings about missing
> function prototypes, but that doesn't seem to have caused problems. I also
> noticed that it seemed to run faster than the version I've been working
> with. Is that "nasty bug" affecting javac you listed as fixed in the NEWS
> file the same one Brian Jones reported? Because if it is, it doesn't seem
> to be fixed for me.
hmm... not if it's the one that I fixed... I seem to remember it was something
about return values getting corrupted on the stack.
What's Brian Jones's problem?
xtoph
