On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:11:46PM +0300, Martin-?ric Racine wrote: > Wasn't PALO (the bootloader) also build-dependant upon 3.0 at some point?
Not really. It was a coincendence palo built with gcc 3.0 worked and palo built with later gcc didn't. The bug was in palo and I'm pretty sure paul fixed it in palo 1.5. grant
