From: Tobias D. <tob...@gm...> - 2007-03-26 21:41:37
|
On Monday 26 March 2007 23:31:59 Javier Serrano Polo wrote: > Hi, Toby. > > The CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS change in the last revision is unintentional, isn't > it? This one overrides optimization-flags with our own. I don't know whether th= is=20 helps, so we can also revert this change, no problem ;-) Concerning PolyLB302: is there a way to use more common code from lb302 and= =20 only implement the actual differences between these two plugins? I guess it= 's=20 very hard to keep those two plugins synchronous... Furthermore I generally= =20 dislike redundancy like this... ;) toby |