I use emacs. (I know, I know, I can hear all of you vi people out there
snickering)
Brian
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
Anyone know of a good code editor for X that doesn't use GTK or QT? I
would like something that displays colors (like for variables, etc). I
also
X app unless run with -nowindow (at which point it becomes console based).
Once you learn the keybindings, it is super easy to use either way (but I
still prefer running it as an X app)
Brian
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I use emacs. (I know,
Is there anything about nedit that is better than emacs or vim other than
the quicker learning time?
Brian
On Mon, 21 Jul 2003, Steven Elling wrote:
On Monday 21 July 2003 17:33, Nathaniel McCallum wrote:
Anyone know of a good code editor for X that doesn't use GTK or QT? I
would like
Ladanyi -
Your question may have already been answered... but if you have more
questions:
General programming questions use the comp.programming news group
C++ questions use the comp.lang.c++ news group.
Brian
On Thu, 3 Jul 2003, Ladanyi Akos wrote:
Hi!
Sorry for posting this here, but
Actually, with templates, the template definitions have to be available to
the source at compile time... you can't just link it in. Soon (I hope???)
the export keyword will be supported, and then you should be able to use
good practice by putting the function definitions in a .cpp file instead
ICC can produce faster code, but it won't always... It tends to be about
5% faster on my own
path tracer. One thing to note is that there are several compiler options
for optimization. There are things like global interprocedural opts, even
interfile opts, and you can also compile using
what ebuilds support icc.
I'd like to try some others than povray. Maybe QT or KDE woul be good
but I'm not sure if this will work - probably not :-( .
Michael
Brian Budge wrote:
ICC can produce faster code, but it won't always... It tends to be about
5% faster on my own
path tracer
Interesting... what flags were you using for the two compilers? Which
version of ICC where you using?
I haven't noticed more than maybe a 10% difference, and I like the ability
to use the more standards compliant gcc...
On Wed, 2 Jul 2003, Harald Arnesen wrote:
Martin LORANG [EMAIL
ICC is generally pretty compatible with all the gcc compiled libraries.
It also CAN be faster, but isn't really all that much faster than the
newer versions of gcc. I prefer gcc because it is closer to conforming to
the C++ standard...
Brian
On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, Zack Gilburd wrote:
On
Hi -
I was just emerging world (which included gcc and more), and apparently,
it messed up the libpthread.so library... my emerge halted because it
couldn't find a whole bunch of pthread_*_* signatures... and now even
emerge won't work, because python relies on pthreads too... does anybody
, Budd, Tracy wrote:
On a related note. Does anyone have a suggestion of frequently
clobbered / critical libraries that a user could backup
for use in cases like this?
Thanks,
-Tracy
-Original Message-
From: Brian Budge
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 3:11 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED
Is there any way to roll back to glibc 2.3? I can't even bring up new
terminals, or emacs, or anything! If I turn off my machine, I could be
left with a completely non-functional machine :(
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Brian Budge wrote:
Ahh... looks like it's even worse... I can't even xlock now
Thanks Jim... Please let us know if the partial reinstall works, and what
you had to do.
Brian
On Tue, 3 Jun 2003, Jim Bailey wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2003 at 02:07:16PM -0700, Brian Budge wrote:
Is there any way to roll back to glibc 2.3? I can't even bring up new
terminals, or emacs
Hi all -
I tried to scan the forum for this, but the forum appears to be down...
I still consider myself a newbie, though I've made a few successful linux
installs already (a couple gentoo), so this is hopefully something easily
resolved.
When I installed gentoo before, I had no problem just
14 matches
Mail list logo
