> -----Original Message----- > From: Post, Mark K [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, September 12, 2002 4:51 PM > > That's really not acceptable. :( To suddenly throw in a requirement to > upgrade to a relatively new compiler (particularly for Linux/390) based on > something you "heard" is very aggravating. For me to even get gcc 3.1 built > will take about a week (working on it part time, if I get the time) or more, > assuming I can find the disk space to hold it all.
Hi Mark, I tend to agree with you, but I have also seen how much SAPDB relies on the size of a bool being 1 byte. I also have a problem with disk space for building gcc 3.1, but other than that, well - if gcc31 will make SAPDB compile on Linux/390, then I'll take it. Note - you can have concurrent installs of a mix of gcc versions - and only use gcc31 for SAPDB. As for using a "relatively new" compiler for SAPDB only - I can live with it :-) Now let's see where I've got some DASD hidden away ... regards, Per Jessen, Zurich PS: would it really take 1 week to build gcc 3.1 for you ? I've built gcc 2.95.x on old 486 machines - still only took about 12 hours (I think - definitely less than 24) _______________________________________________ sapdb.general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://listserv.sap.com/mailman/listinfo/sapdb.general
