Received: by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) id MAA07582; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 12:02:28 -0700 Received: from battra.telebase.com by taz.hyperreal.com (8.6.12/8.6.5) with ESMTP id MAA07567; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 12:02:20 -0700 Received: from wormhole.telebase.com by battra.telebase.com id PAA15221 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from spudboy.telebase.com (chuck@spudboy.telebase.com [172.16.2.215]) by wormhole.telebase.com (8.7.3/8.6.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA28705 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:02:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from chuck@localhost) by spudboy.telebase.com (8.6.12/8.6.9.1) id PAA13720 for new-httpd@hyperreal.com; Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:02:12 -0400 From: Chuck Murcko Message-Id: <199606131902.PAA13720@telebase.com.> Subject: Re: next compilation woes To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 15:02:12 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: from "Brian Behlendorf" at Jun 13, 96 11:52:51 am X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-new-httpd@apache.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: new-httpd@hyperreal.com Brian Behlendorf liltingly intones: > > On Thu, 13 Jun 1996, Chuck Murcko wrote: > > I'll add a line for the test for BSDI 2.1 unless you just want to call it 2.x. > > If you think there'll be differences, it's worth adding I suppose. No difference. I just tried it. Same compile output as 2.0.x. > > > Which compiler are you going to use for IRIX? I have SGI cc and gcc 2.7.2. > > Will checking these help? > > Mark Cox sent me a test for Irix 5.3 with SGI cc ("Warnings: > http_bprintf.c, line 86: Long double not supported; double assumed."), but > trying it with gcc would also be good. > Will do, later tonite. That was the warning I got, it was IRIX after all. chuck Chuck Murcko N2K Inc. Wayne PA chuck@telebase.com And now, on a lighter note: We're only in it for the volume. -- Black Sabbath