From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IzwNX-0000J8-BO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:41:39 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1IzwNV-0000GY-JV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:41:38 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IzwNV-0000GJ-7Z
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:41:37 -0500
Received: from hobi.com ([130.94.185.247])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <rickv@hobi.com>) id 1IzwNU-0003PR-Q6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:41:37 -0500
Received: from unknown (HELO ricklap) ([68.23.60.237])
	(envelope-sender <rickv@hobi.com>)
	by 130.94.185.247 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; 5 Dec 2007 15:41:34 -0000
From: Rick Vernam <rickv@hobi.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] gcc
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:41:32 -0600
References: <200712032020.29182.rickv@hobi.com> <20071205003553.GC10466@tapir>
In-Reply-To: <20071205003553.GC10466@tapir>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200712050941.33014.rickv@hobi.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tuesday 04 December 2007 06:35:53 pm Carlo Marcelo Arenas Belon wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2007 at 08:20:28PM -0600, Rick Vernam wrote:
> > any comments on the current status of moving beyond dependency on GCC
> > 3.3.6?
>
> you meant dependency on GCC < 4 right?
yeah..thanks.

> I use gcc 3.4.6 and there shouldn't be any reasons AFAIK that wouldn't work.
yeah, I keep 3.4.6 around, too.

>
> Carlo