AW: problem with 116fix2 and pdflatex
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 05:39:06PM +0200, Beyer, Marcus wrote: I am not quite sure if I understand you. Certainly there are many bugs fixed from fix1 to fix2. And that is very nice. (thank you!) But this bug is a new one (since fix2), and it is annoying. So I wouldn't have installed fix2 on my Windows system, which always costs me serveral hours. And oscillating between different versions is not so easy as with unix/linux, because the installation procedure changed a lot during the last versions. Are you sure that you didn't have this problem with fix1 ? I don't see how can this happen. Maybe you updated latex and this caused the problem ? I don't think it's an update problem, because the problem exists on my system, too. I searched the archive about this problem: Is it possible that it's caused by some optimizing compiling options of gcc as mentioned earlier? If it's so, how can the source made robust to be protected about this optimizations? Steffen
AW: problem with 116fix2 and pdflatex
On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 05:39:06PM +0200, Beyer, Marcus wrote: > I am not quite sure if I understand you. > Certainly there are many bugs fixed from fix1 to fix2. > And that is very nice. (thank you!) > > But this bug is a new one (since fix2), and it is annoying. > > So I wouldn't have installed fix2 on my Windows system, > which always costs me serveral hours. > And oscillating between different versions is not so > easy as with unix/linux, because the installation > procedure changed a lot during the last versions. > Are you sure that you didn't have this problem with fix1 ? > I don't see how can this happen. > Maybe you updated latex and this caused the problem ? I don't think it's an update problem, because the problem exists on my system, too. I searched the archive about this problem: Is it possible that it's caused by some optimizing compiling options of gcc as mentioned earlier? If it's so, how can the source made robust to be protected about this "optimizations"? Steffen