Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2002/10/14/15:46:17
> I believe header fixes in 2.03 mk2 are not complete - if we
> include GCC's <stdarg.h> and later on our <stdio.h>, we get
> redefinition warnings. Ordinary users won't see this, because these
> warnings are suppressed in system headers. However, if we try to build
> 2.03 libc, it strikes, because these headers are not treated like
> system in this case.
The goal for the second refresh was to avoid fatal compile errors.
If you don't count the manifests, there were two include files, the
djgpp.env, and the readme.1st updated. It wasn't much of an update.
Someone mentioned they didn't believe building 2.03 with newer GCC
should be considered; in fact the patch for bzero (?) probably breaks
building that library function with newer GCC since the code has the
wrong prototype.
I have collected one additional libc fix (stat on devices on w2k/xp)
which could be fixed.
> If we ever plan to make 2.03mk3 or something like
> that, we should backport my patch
> http://www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi?p=djgpp-workers/2000/12/02/08:56:40
> It adjusts stdio.h et al not to redefine stuff again.
>
> What do others think?
I'm not against an update, but the refresh 2 isn't even complete yet :-(
and it's been on the work list since mid-January.
I'd rather spend time getting 2.04 released.
> FYI, I'm slowly making my way to get 2.03 compile without warnings. I've backported
> lots of IMO safe patches from 2.04.
I think we should collect and document these, until we decide what to do.
- Raw text -