And also OS/2 / icc (IBM Visual Age C++ 3.0). Brgds, Viktor On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 4:08 PM, Viktor Szakáts <[email protected]> wrote:
> owatcom seems also okay, and pocc is nice for some free x64/ARM platform > testing, otherwise I agree. > Let me extend the question. > > Does anyone have any objection to remove this list > from our supported compiler list: > > - win/dmc (buggy and compiler not updated) > - win/xcc (based on very old version of pocc, propriatery) > - win/icc (IBM VisualAge, not available for Windows anymore, and it was > never tested with Harbour) > > IOW, can I delete these? > > Brgds, > Viktor > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 3:45 PM, Lorenzo Fiorini <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 2:45 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > ; NOTE: More candidates for such pruning are: >> > - dmc (buggy and compiler not updated) >> > - xcc (based on very old version of pocc) >> > Any opinions? >> >> I would keep only mingw, msvc, bcc for Win and gcc for all the rest. >> >> Just my opinion of course. >> >> best regards, >> Lorenzo >> _______________________________________________ >> Harbour mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour >> > >
_______________________________________________ Harbour mailing list [email protected] http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
