"flame" == "stoopidly pedantic"... NOT a discussion I want to get into again. It *is* 5 years after it was written, by folks no longer here, (actually 10 years) and it WORKED FLAWLESSLY when written. Code + compiler -> successful product. The compiler changed, it's current behavior is broken from my point of view! This compiler broken-ness drives a decision to NOT upgrade to the current (dysfunctional) compiler nor the OS it rode in on. Brian Brunner brian.t.brunner at gai-tronics.com (610)796-5838 >>> alex at milivojevic.org 10/24/05 12:08PM >>> Quoting "Brian T. Brunner" <brian.t.brunner at gai-tronics.com>: > Not necessarily... gcc 2.9x LOVES my code, and the program built > under it runs like a champ. <flame mode="on"> "Try this and see if compiler or interpretter complains" approach is discutably OK for one-time use Perl scripts. It's a very bad approach for C code that should be used (and, oh my God recompiled) 5 years after it was written. </flame> If your code conforms to ANSI, file a bug with gcc folks. If it doesn't conform with ANSI, it's you who are at fault. Don't blame the compiler for your mistakes of the past. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS at centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated