Message-ID:	<39200B7B.679C568C@softhome.net>
Date:	Mon, 15 May 2000 17:36:43 +0300
From:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
CC:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Subject:	Re: more gcc issues
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000515104325 DOT 9209G-100000 AT is>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > There are definitely options. But they may not want to let their headers
> > recognize DJGPPisms since we can easily change ours unlike other cases where
> > GCC is being installed on a system that already has a system compiler.
> 
> IMHO we should try anyway.  It doesn't make sense for GCC maintainers
> to tell us to get lost just because we use GCC as the system compiler.
> The issue is not the compiler, it's the library.
> 
> > Below is the stddef.h that currently comes with 2.96 which should illustrate
> > this.
> 
> Note how many system-dependent defines does it have; why should it be
> a problem to add some random #ifdef __DJGPP__?

I bet GCC maintainers won't be very happy to increase ad-hoc there - most
of those #ifdef are caused by headers in commercial libc, where problems are
kinda hard to fix at libc's side.

So I vote for adjusting our headers.

Laurynas Biveinis

- Raw text -