On Tuesday 08 April 2003 23:44, Daniel Rode wrote: > not sure, but maybe gcc 2.95 is better. I've heard gcc 3.x isn't the good > idea... i've got 3.2.2 over here, compiling everything nicely.. perhaps that linking problem is caused by some 3.2 bug fixed later on.. i recommend upgrading to 3.2.2 or .3 if there's one already.. > daniel -rzei