Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU!kit
From: kit@EXPO.LCS.MIT.EDU (Chris D. Peterson)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: fix-2 gcc patch implications?
Message-ID: <9002151359.AA11401@expo.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: 15 Feb 90 13:59:36 GMT
References: <600@igor.Rational.COM>
Sender: daemon@athena.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 21


> I notice that fix #2 contains a work-around for the gcc XtNewString
> bug.  Does this mean that gcc-1.36 or some newer release has been
> blessed as "safe for those of us who don't know adb and are happy that
> way"?  Previous postings led me to believe that only gcc-1.35 had been
> tested and was considered trustworthy...

Nope, we are still using gcc version 1.35 here.  We found that the XtNewString
bug also occured in that version, but we just never noticed it.

This is not to say that those versions don't work, just that we have not used
them, and have no way of knowing what bugs might appear.  

X is real good as stressing compilers :-)

						Chris D. Peterson     
						MIT X Consortium 

Net:	 kit@expo.lcs.mit.edu
Phone:   (617) 253 - 9608	
Address: MIT - Room NE43-213