On 30 Jul, Marc Lehmann wrote:
> It's you who is unprof(f)essional. You were and are totally wrong with
> your today's claim about gcc -- claiming some not-yet-existant
> version of gcc causes problems on your machine.
Pardon? Just because a version is not officially released doesn't mean
it doesn't exist, does it?
I'm forced to use a gcc version later than the LAST OFFICIALLY released
version because I'm having severe problem with the C++ frontend in
2.95.2. I claim I'm using the CVS version from today which is obviously
more rencent than 2.95.2.
Now please tell me, where's my thinko???
> I am not. However, unless you tell me about it I will have no way of
> finding out.
Ok, I told you that you can't compile the plugin with a CVS version
of gcc. There will be surely a new release somewhen so even more
people will notice it, so fixing it before that will happen seems
sensible to me.
> For example, when I told you that your latest patch uses mempcpy, a
> function not available on most systems, you just replied with a quote
> from the libc info pages(!), claiming the function _does_ exist.
Sorry Marc, I told you very clearly that this shouldn't have been in
the patch since it was just a try that has never worked anyway but
since you told me in a very selfconfident way that this
function hasn't ever existed I replied with a quote of the info page!
That's the fact, anything else is pure speculation from your side.
[ Rest of speculations deleted ]
Marc, I just want to know ONE little thing: Will you help to make
the gimpperl plugin usable on more systems (for example on future
gccs), YES or NO?