From: sl AT psycode DOT com (sl)
To: "DJ Delorie" <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Cc: "DJGPP mailing list" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 98 01:20:16 
Reply-To: "Gili" <sl AT psycode DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: GCC 2.8.1 and NULL
Message-ID: <19980629050543270.AAA215@portC69.Generation.NET>
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 29 Jun 1998 01:02:07 -0400 (EDT), DJ Delorie wrote:

>that makes them broken is that they define NULL and then include a
>standard header.  Whoever causes this action is broken.

	Ok, to cut to the chase.. Were the GCC authors informed of this
conflict? How do we expect to get this sort of thing fixed? How is
__null (which the C++ define NULL to) any different than "0"? Both
resolve to "0", but __null has a different type (I don't know its
actual type as it seems to be a built-in constant in GCC)

Gili