Re: new vs old autoconf / Re: checking for non-standard headers

[Guido Draheim]

Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2003, Guido Draheim wrote:
>
>
> > of another file. In all other cases, I'm quite fine... what features
> > are overdue by your records, Thomas?
>
>
> I suppose you could look at the cvs version and answer your own question.
> I recall seeing a half-dozen serious bugs reported - and fixed - since
> 2.57, making the difference at least as much as from 2.54 to 2.57.  (2.55
> & 2.56 were blunders, of course - read the changelog).

Hmm, I might wonder what your "serious bugs" are, it looks like a lot of
those are portability fixes, which is not quite the same as serious problems
of the architecture. Anyway, my question was more to what happens to be
hurting _your_ projects on the platforms that _you_ are using. Apart from
that, yes, it seems the code base itself uses quite a number of new
algorithmics which makes it quite a difference indeed. So I wonder what
that would do to my projects *sigh* call it 2.60 to be sure everyone
notices?

cheers,
-- guido                                  http://AC-Archive.sf.net
GCS/E/S/P C++/++++$ ULHS L++w- N++@ d(+-) s+a- r+@>+++ y++ 5++X-