Date: Mon, 26 Apr 1999 13:11:16 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Andris Pavenis cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: v2.03: wrapping up In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Andris Pavenis wrote: > Let's imagine that upcomming egcs-1.2 will need modified version of lib/specs > (I think it's very likely). Of course we can put it in gcc binary archive, but user > may run in problems if he upgrades libc after installing gcc. I'm not saying that specs shouldn't come with the compiler. I don't have anything against specs being part of the compiler distribution. I only want a clean and reliable solution for __DJGPP__ and __DJGPP_MINOR__ to be defined according to the library in use. That is all that worries me. > I see one serious problem with that: > I can have another version of DJGPP (lib and include directories only) > located somewhere else (eg. current CVS version with different version > number). So let's have the compiler look at %C_INCLUDE_PATH% instead of %DJDIR/include%. Does this solve the problem? > Forcing to get minor version > number from include files which is not included automatically perhaps will cause > some problems mostly for developers. But I still think that these are temporary > problems and we should go through them. I don't see why do you think these problems will ever go away.