5 Aug
2013
5 Aug
'13
8:50 a.m.
On 08/05/2013 10:33 AM, John Maddock wrote:
I suspect from a purely practical perspective, few libraries are still compatible with that compiler, so I'm inclined to agree we might as well drop support. Of course that opens a whole can of worms, because if we agreed to that then there's a whole slew of config macros (and associated workarounds) that can be removed.
How is that 'a can of worms' rather than 'a good thing' ?
Well, can it not be both? ;-)
No, it can't be a can of worms at all. It's simply a benefit/effect/consequence of bumping the compiler requirement. Thanks, Steve.