+1 also for both 2008/2/13, Pavel Pervov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > +1 for both. > > We now have stable gc_gen which is more advanced in GC algorithms than > gc_cc. > We now have stable verifier which is smaller and faster than old one. > > Pavel. > > On 2/13/08, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > there is a number of bugs in gc_cc and not that many volunteers to fix > them, > > do we need to continue support it or we better move to archive? > > > > the same for original verifier: a number of bugs found in both > > verifiers were fixed in the default one (verifier-3363) only, should > > we move the original one into archive? > > > > Thanks, > > Mikhail > > >
-- Vladimir Beliaev Intel Middleware Products Division
