Date:	Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:40:25 -0700
From:	Zack Weinberg <zack AT wolery DOT cumb DOT org>
To:	Mike Stump <mrs AT windriver DOT com>
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org,
	martin AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de
Subject:	Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
Message-ID:	<20000722174025.C263@wolery.cumb.org>
References:	<200007230023 DOT RAA01633 AT kankakee DOT wrs DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To:	<200007230023.RAA01633@kankakee.wrs.com>; from mrs@windriver.com on Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 05:23:25PM -0700
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 Sat, Jul 22, 2000 at 05:23:25PM -0700, Mike Stump wrote:
> > From: Zack Weinberg <zack AT wolery DOT cumb DOT org>
> > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 16:02:26 -0700
> > To: Mike Stump <mrs AT windriver DOT com>
> 
> > A similar argument can be made for assert.h, stddef.h, and possibly
> > float.h, but these headers do not cause nearly as much trouble as
> > limits.h.  Limits.h must die.
> 
> If we do this, we should do them all enmass, and then be willing to
> seek out and test on lots of platforms to make sure we don't introduce
> new bugs.

Agreed, this would be a major intrusive change, and would require
heavy testing.

Now seems like a good time to do it, to me - we are working on a new
major version, after all.

zw

- Raw text -