cgp? (was: GP ;-)

[Neil Santos]

On 15:34 30/05/04, Frank Heckenbach wrote:

> output etc.). If we teach "GP" to pass `-lm -lgpc', we could get rid
> of the separate gpc executable and call "GP" gpc. But I'm not sure
> if everybody would be comfortable with such a change ...

Here's my take on this issue:

When GPC is merged into GCC--where `soon' is barely soon enough (and I
think I speak for the majority)--and when, as you have already
speculated in your previous post, the gpc executable becomes
unnecessary, then people will have to deal with it, whether they'd
like to or not.

Soo...  I guess what I'm trying to say here is, when the Merge
happens, renaming GP's executable into `gpc' won't be a problem.

-- 
Political Dissident                                        Neil Santos
Free Software Advocate                      Jabber: nsantos at jabber.org

     Please avoid sending me attachments encoded in secret formatting.
            See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://www.g-n-u.de/pipermail/gpc/attachments/20040531/4311a23c/attachment.pgp>