vim patch no longer needed

Matthew Burgess ca9mbu at eos.sunderland.ac.uk
Mon Feb 10 13:46:59 PST 2003


"Zack Winkles" <winkie093 at bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:20030210155033.3e4c78fc.winkie093 at bellsouth.net...
> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 20:41:06 -0000
> "Matthew Burgess" <ca9mbu at eos.sunderland.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> > "Zack Winkles" <winkie093 at bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:20030210153513.1c2d371a.winkie093 at bellsouth.net...
> > > (see subject line)
> >
> > Why is it no longer required?  I thought it was to fix a gcc-3.2+
> > compilation problem.  There's been no official release of Vim since
> > (although they do have a patch available on the ftp server - one of
> > 320 I don't fancy finding the exact reference now).  Does
> > gcc-3.2.1/gcc-3.2.2 somehow manage to cope with Vims' broken syntax?
>
> well if you had actually LOOKED at the patch you would realize that it
> doesn't fix syntax at all, it just removes some configure magic
dealing
> with /usr/local/include. gcc 3.2 made a huge mess of this and usually
> barfed, but as the release notes for 3.2.1 (and therefore 3.2.2)
state,
> this is no longer the case. and hell, if you don't believe any of
this,
> just try compiling vim without the patch and with it, then diff the
> binaries ;)

Sorry, but as I stated in my original response *I thought* (i.e. there
was an element of doubt) that it was a syntax error.  Thanks for
correcting me.  The only reason that I asked was that the patch was
originally required to fix a problem that arose when using gcc-3.2, so I
assumed (oh dear) that it was non-compliant code on Vims part.  I'll not
be as lazy next time - honest! :)


-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list