Sender:	rich AT delorie DOT com
Message-ID:	<3913041A.43FB8303@bigfoot.com>
Date:	Fri, 05 May 2000 18:25:46 +0100
From:	Richard Dawe <richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: SIGIOT for DJGPP?
References:	<Pine DOT LNX DOT 4 DOT 10 DOT 10005051136460 DOT 597-100000 AT acp3bf> <3912DC6B DOT 89948250 AT softhome DOT net>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> 
> Hans-Bernhard Broeker wrote:
> > We shouldn't try to make DJGPP a combination of all possible Unix
> > flavours that ever existed, so we don't need SIGIOT, I think.
> 
> I see your point, but if it is pretty easy to accomplich and does not
> cause any problems, then why not?

I guess it could break things that use the existance of SIGIOT as evidence
of its support. If they're going to fix gcc, why add it?

- Raw text -