PATCH: fix for BG1675

[Phil Edwards]

On Thu, Feb 01, 2001 at 01:55:33AM +0100, Dirk Mueller wrote:
> Hi, 
> 
> no replies ?

Took a while to sink in that "BG1675" == PR 1675, so I haven't really been
paying attention.  The other maintainers have seriously critical stuff on
their hands right now.


> I forgot to mention that according to the FAQ the removal of 
> the stl_relops is recommended anyway. Was there something wrong with the 
> patch?

A quick once-over looks good to me, but let me do some testing with it.
I don't know what exactly we're allowed to do with the backwards-compat
headers.


Phil

-- 
pedwards at disaster dot jaj dot com  |  pme at sources dot redhat dot com
devphil at several other less interesting addresses in various dot domains
The gods do not protect fools.  Fools are protected by more capable fools.