Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/1999/04/27/18:24:05
Subj: Re: v2.03: wrapping up
To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il (Eli Zaretskii)
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Dear Eli Zaretskii,
On 04-27-99 at 07:11:16 EST you wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, 27 Apr 1999, Andris Pavenis wrote:
>
> > I don't think so. Imagine if somebody will want to test something with
> > DJGPP-2.00 or 2.01 which didn't have sys/version.h.
>
> I don't see how this will cause any trouble: gcc from those old versions
> won't use the (yet unknown) way of passing -imacros to the preprocessor,
> so cpp won't see -imacros. Those old versions will use lib/specs from
> the old DJGPP distributions, which define __DJGPP__ and __DJGPP_MINOR__.
>
> So I don't think old versions will have any problems with this.
>
> > Grepping sources also shows that all should be Ok.
>
> I don't understand why do you say ``all should be Ok''. In the Emacs
> 19.34 distribution, the files src/msdos.c and src/dosfns.c check whether
> __DJGPP_MINOR__ is 0 (for some bugs in v2.0). Current Emacs 20.3 sources
> check for 2.02 or later (for some features missing in v2.01, like
> sigprocmask).
>
>
> And this is only off the top of my head. The problem is real, believe
> me.
> > Therefore it would be easy to test
> > this with this version.
>
> It is not easy at all to test this.
>
> Alternatively, you need to remember what were the problems which caused
> that special code to be written, and how to recreate those problems. I
> don't know how much time will it take me to recall the problems I solved
> years ago.
>
What's needed is a documentation trail. Isn't there such a device in
our version control system?
> Like I said: it's a maintainer's nightmare.
>
> Is it really that hard to add a few lines to GCC so that it expands
> %C_INCLUDE_PATH% and passes -imacros to cpp? Maybe we should do that
> instead of arguing.
>
No vote has been solicited, but I come down squarely on Eli Zaretskii's
side. Solve the immediate problem simply as suggested in the previous
paragraph. Then solve the problems created thereby. Arguing fails to
solve the problem. Action will at least get the effort underway. It's
a lot easier to discuss *real* problems than imaginary ones.
K.B. Williams
- Raw text -