Re: __DBL_HAS_DENORM__ et al required in recent libstdc++

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: tprince@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: __DBL_HAS_DENORM__ et al required in recent libstdc++
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: 30 Nov 2006 00:29:20 +0100
Cc: gcc-help <gcc-help@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <456E0431.2010609@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <456AF5B1.3060104@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <m3lkluf1cx.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <456E0431.2010609@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Tim Prince <timothyprince@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

[...]

Would you be more polite the next time and refrain from setting the
"Reply-To" field to an invalid address when you ask for assistance on
GCC list?  Thanks, 

-- Gaby

References:
- __DBL_HAS_DENORM__ et al required in recent libstdc++
  - From: Tim Prince
- Re: __DBL_HAS_DENORM__ et al required in recent libstdc++
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: __DBL_HAS_DENORM__ et al required in recent libstdc++
  - From: Tim Prince

Prev by Date: Re: __DBL_HAS_DENORM__ et al required in recent libstdc++
Next by Date: Re: Unclear documentation on building GCC together with binutils
Previous by thread: Re: __DBL_HAS_DENORM__ et al required in recent libstdc++
Next by thread: gcc 3.0 and linux kernel
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Linux C Programming] [Linux Kernel] [eCos] [Fedora Development] [Fedora Announce] [Autoconf] [The DWARVES Debugging Tools] [Yosemite Campsites] [Yosemite News] [Linux GCC]

Powered by Linux