Dan McGuirk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What is wrong with "gcc -E" or whatever the system's cpp is? Good point. And it wouldn't be terribly difficult to ship The GNU C-Compatible Compiler Preprocessor (cccp) with Classpath, as it's easily extractable from the GCC dist. John, is there any reason why cccp won't do? -- Paul Fisher * [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Paul Fisher
- Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Brian Jones
- RE: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited John Keiser
- RE: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited John Keiser
- Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Paul Fisher
- RE: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited John Keiser
- Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Paul Fisher
- Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited toshok
- Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Paul Fisher
- Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Dan McGuirk
- RE: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Paul Fisher
- RE: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited John Keiser
- RE: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited John Keiser
- Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Alexandre Oliva
- Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Paul Fisher
- Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Alexandre Oliva
- Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Brian Jones
- RE: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Bernd Kreimeier
- Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Wes Biggs
- RE: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited John Keiser
- Re: 1.1 vs. 1.2 revisited Paul Fisher

