X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Original-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
	:content-type;
	bh=NYhwqWnbm8J7PyFx14ET6CspyimjVoKgQVviEp6iqYY=;
	b=iDKWmhLAecxn25iwm7ZRYAW4YqEEIOt8y7I/as3N7gbc40D8SympCMH3CghrPkViAH
	u6zt1Xd8P9fAMvTw4r/nlagx8uIAQQofbFj4+EekiVKUI1qIZ3GXb2NHXMr4XYALDMPo
	Dk1xeneMHMQ7oDUCiG5f1F+sXNgFo/DO0Is/actTDdb9uGPHNw4K3lu2pr+3SbtFLfao
	NXkc8fl/IwipR1czdtCZABWx3LSDyyTCeaGQHsNgj5M4TLK/8sUS/Da4n65R/yBAJ/3K
	3hXOvaQIat8okLKVg6rfQO9W8vO49Y9LbILP/Gb1om37pSyzRPqtUCDQYBLaCwRImiHk
	QvQg==
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Received:	by 10.50.66.234 with SMTP id i10mr12144429igt.22.1431954379288;
	Mon, 18 May 2015 06:06:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:	<201505181216.t4ICGaKO014123@envy.delorie.com>
References:	<201505042003 DOT t44K3odg011007 AT delorie DOT com>
	<CAA2C=vAjN-HamFRWCQak=QF_NPjR5-TBYZw1U5707MO0b=qXkw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<554DF584 DOT 4020309 AT iki DOT fi>
	<CAA2C=vDaOJb_RW2bQEFoM_cqwp7yhzwX-CB328r5GCCi6XcooA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<55501DAD DOT 1080604 AT iki DOT fi>
	<CAA2C=vAvMW-yquZLSN=Z39NU24Kqf7urjan90801i7BDTdqOvQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<55579278 DOT 8090301 AT iki DOT fi>
	<CAA2C=vBaQKzmch_buxFm20DJLcG+zv6d6803+qMEx=baA4Frog AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<555829A6 DOT 8010502 AT iki DOT fi>
	<CAA2C=vA73qPvoDFytp3FeW6bCD1-XuGsFFoDinoKn2KYY1fkow AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<555870E8 DOT 7040302 AT iki DOT fi>
	<CAA2C=vDhD6BJj89o1i0FRd2U0H4bTpGGN4zH6qs7FJKxzqhuQg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201505180114 DOT t4I1EiaX017288 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<CAA2C=vCyrQ_+Yq6XsRD-UO4r=j9WoGGiXoqQFrkbiEQpzX+=MA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201505181216 DOT t4ICGaKO014123 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Date:	Mon, 18 May 2015 16:06:19 +0300
Message-ID:	<CAA2C=vCk5MY74z+HNVzzdLByg71Y_9ObK-1jPxJ_KF8eqRDZMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP 2.05 beta 1
From:	"Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On 5/18/15, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
> I tested this with Linux gcc 5.1 and got the same bit patterns for
> both cases:
>
> typedef struct {
>   unsigned mantissal:32;
>   unsigned mantissah:20;
>   unsigned exponent:11;
>   unsigned sign:1;
> } double_t;
> double   gdm = ((double)1.79769313486231570815e+308L);
> double_t ddm = { 0xffffffffU, 0xfffff, 0x7fe, 0x0 };
>

OK, if we are good with gcc defines then change your float.h accordingly,
but that's not my point.

The discussion is about we are pointing to gcc's headers directory
for allowed includes when building djgpp itself, whereas

(i) we don't need that at all anymore (it was done only to work around
a gcc builtin problem and it got solved without needing this hack),

(ii) we are building with -nostdinc which means we are self-
sufficient, and that hack is against this,

(iii) since our DBL_MAX, etc are not compile time constants but symbols,
and gcc ones are, the binary output of several djgpp functions such as
strtod, etc, are different with and without gcc-headers hack.

Those are the reasons I am against allowing gcc's headers in djgpp
build.

- Raw text -