Re: [Pan-users] Re: Anyone get pan compiling with gcc 4.3 yet?

[Daniel Rahn]

On Tuesday 25 March 2008 10:52:16 Duncan wrote:
> ... which is why in theory no x.y.1 is ever needed, right.  =8^)

Well, I was only referring to the traces I saw, which were reported to
our GCC guys here and therefore were fixed one way or another.

There will of course be so many we did not catch. May the fun begin ;)

-Daniel