SCO port update - what now?

[Daniel Stone]

On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 10:25:19AM -0700, Kean Johnston wrote:
> > glxinfo is a C program, not a C++ program.  The only problem arises with
> > broken linkers that do not properly link in libstdc++ to dependent
> > libraries, but this is not glxinfo or imake's problem.
> Ah. Fair enough. But if using SimpleCplusplusTarget makes the compile
> more robust in the presense of such broken linkers, is there a
> downside to using it? Some unintended side-effect? I know this may be
> a trade-off between "correct" and "robust" but ... I usually tend to
> prefer the latter to the former :)

I think it could have some unwanted side-effects, but can't remember
which off the top of my head.  I assume the linker SCO's using requires
this?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20050611/da5f1380/attachment.pgp>