On 3/31/20 8:42 AM, Matt Turner wrote:
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:24 AM Adam Jackson wrote:
Does anyone have strong opinions on this? I would really like to bump
to at least 0.49 for the position-independent executable support. If
not that, 0.47 gives us 'feature' support for build options,
On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 8:24 AM Adam Jackson wrote:
>
> Does anyone have strong opinions on this? I would really like to bump
> to at least 0.49 for the position-independent executable support. If
> not that, 0.47 gives us 'feature' support for build options, which
> addresses the "should we
On 30.3.2020 18.42, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> On 2020-03-30 5:23 p.m., Adam Jackson wrote:
>> Does anyone have strong opinions on this? I would really like to bump
>> to at least 0.49 for the position-independent executable support. If
>> not that, 0.47 gives us 'feature' support for build options,
On 2020-03-30 5:23 p.m., Adam Jackson wrote:
> Does anyone have strong opinions on this? I would really like to bump
> to at least 0.49 for the position-independent executable support. If
> not that, 0.47 gives us 'feature' support for build options, which
> addresses the "should we enable this by
Does anyone have strong opinions on this? I would really like to bump
to at least 0.49 for the position-independent executable support. If
not that, 0.47 gives us 'feature' support for build options, which
addresses the "should we enable this by default or not" question in a
consistent way.
-
