Message-ID:	<20010207183639.651.qmail@lauras.lt>
From:	"Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date:	Wed, 7 Feb 2001 20:36:39 +0200
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Cc:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Subject:	Re: trouble with MSDOS Macro
Mail-Followup-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
References:	<7263-Wed07Feb2001190613+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il> <Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 10102071810580 DOT 4137-100000 AT acp3bf>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.12i
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10102071810580.4137-100000@acp3bf>; from broeker@physik.rwth-aachen.de on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 06:22:40PM +0100
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 06:22:40PM +0100, Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> The existing manual already explicitly tells that it 'cannot' do that, so
> it won't. I guess it'd be hard to convince the GCC mainainers to abandon
> that rule in favour of the type of documentation you suggest.

I wouldn't be so sure in the case of GCC - some parts of its documentation
might be more than 10 years old, and things change over time.

> Right. But GCC is quite different from many other programs.  The main
> point of difference would be that GCC itself does not define the specs
> file, 

It does, at least in 3.0. Any reasons not to use that specs file?

> gcc.info. Specs is essentially part of DJGPP and its libc, not of GCC, so
> its contents and effects should be documented in our own docs.

IMHO specs is a part of _both_ DJGPP and GCC.

Laurynas

- Raw text -