X-Authentication-Warning:	delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
Date:	Tue, 19 May 2015 13:29:18 -0400
Message-Id:	<201505191729.t4JHTIRe011541@envy.delorie.com>
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<83vbfo7a74.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Tue, 19
	May 2015 20:23:43 +0300)
Subject:	Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP 2.05 beta 1
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> <CAA2C=vCk5MY74z+HNVzzdLByg71Y_9ObK-1jPxJ_KF8eqRDZMQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <83zj52dkns DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<CAA2C=vAPcN+MKC_2tcZqVmo9gvF2Cxdo+K+-qfKaNrQuCkMnEw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <555A0DD5 DOT 1010607 AT iki DOT fi> <83r3qdemuj DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <555AADE6 DOT 3030905 AT iki DOT f> <83lhgkehn4 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org> <201505191714 DOT t4JHEr0B010992 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <83vbfo7a74 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> > I think they're talking about the fact that gcc will internally add
> > -I's for its own headers dir, ahead of the system headers dir.
> 
> Is that true even with -nostdinc?

The argument is that we can't rely on that, because the users won't be
using it.

The answer, however, is no.  With --nostdinc, neither gcc's nor (I
assume, since I'm testing on Linux) djgpp's implicit includes are
included in the search list.

> Yes, I agree.  So if we no longer have a reason to include GCC's
> headers while building the library, we should remove that inclusion
> from makefile.inc, I think.

Exception: if the "reason" is "the headers are broken", then we should
instead fix the headers.  Otherwise, users will not get the same
headers as libc, and will/may still see the broken behavior.

> It's AFAIK the job of a platform maintainer for GCC,

The #include_next's are typically available for all platforms, unless
an exception is made.  That complicates things upstream.

> but I'm no longer sure what exactly is the status of DJGPP support
> in GCC.  Do they consider us a dead platform?  Debug info has been
> semi-broken for years.

We (Andris :) maintain our own port with some djgpp-specific changes
(like codegen) pushed upstream and others (like dos-isms) not.

What's wrong with the debug info?

- Raw text -