2011.04.12 02:06 "[Tiff] Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2011.04.12 13:14 "Re: [Tiff] Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Edward Lam
-
2011.04.12 13:30 "Re: [Tiff] Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Bob Friesenhahn
-
2011.04.12 15:55 "Re: [Tiff] Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Edward Lam
-
2011.04.12 17:05 "Re: [Tiff] Bug 1941, Was: Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Lee Howard
-
2011.04.12 18:01 "Re: [Tiff] Bug 1941, Was: Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Edward Lam
-
2011.04.13 02:30 "Re: [Tiff] Bug 1941, Was: Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Graeme Gill
- 2011.04.13 13:08 "Re: [Tiff] Bug 1941, Was: Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Edward Lam
-
2011.04.13 02:30 "Re: [Tiff] Bug 1941, Was: Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Graeme Gill
-
2011.04.12 18:01 "Re: [Tiff] Bug 1941, Was: Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Edward Lam
-
2011.04.12 17:05 "Re: [Tiff] Bug 1941, Was: Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Lee Howard
-
2011.04.12 15:55 "Re: [Tiff] Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Edward Lam
- 2011.04.12 15:19 "Re: [Tiff] Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Edward Lam
-
2011.04.12 13:30 "Re: [Tiff] Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Bob Friesenhahn
- 2011.04.13 15:40 "Re: [Tiff] Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released - libtiff.def changes required", by Edward Lam
- 2011.04.23 09:41 "Re: [Tiff] [GM-help] PDF version", by Hunter1972
2011.04.15 02:36 "Re: [Tiff] Bug 1941, Was: Libtiff v4.0.0beta7 released", by Graeme Gill
Doesn't MingGW32 avoid the use of side by side assemblies?
It does, but it's a significantly slower compiler, so it's not much fun for development (I'd say about 5 x slower).
I'm sure VC++6 will fade into obscurity - I'm just pointing out a concrete reason why it is still around, even though it is so old.
Graeme Gill.