Date: Wed, 17 May 2000 11:26:26 -0400
Message-Id: <200005171526.LAA09310@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000517101928.4709F-100000@is> (message from Eli
	Zaretskii on Wed, 17 May 2000 10:19:47 +0300 (IDT))
Subject: Re: Minor GCC & DJGPP header problem
References:  <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000517101928 DOT 4709F-100000 AT is>
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
Precedence: bulk


> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> 
> > I see two solutions:
> > 1) as it is done with NULL in stdio.h:
> > #undef offsetof
> > #define offsetof we_dont_care_about_previous_def
> > 
> > 2) as gcc does
> > #ifndef offsetof
> > #define offsetof we_care_about_previous_def
> > #endif
> > 
> > Which one (or noone) is OK?
> 
> IMHO, the former.  In this particular case, the two definitions are
> identical, but it might not always be like that.
> 
> DJ?

Neither is really acceptable.  GCC shouldn't conflict with conforming
system headers.