delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se> |
Message-Id: | <200006141013.MAA19472@lws256.lu.erisoft.se> |
Subject: | Re: Patch: sentinels for typedefs in headers |
To: | djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com |
Date: | Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:13:22 +0200 (MET DST) |
In-Reply-To: | <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000614121827.29091K-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jun 14, 2000 12:18:53 PM |
X-Mailer: | ELM [version 2.5 PL3] |
MIME-Version: | 1.0 |
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 |
[Endless discussion about gcc headers deleted. ] Perhaps someone with some official standing in DJGPP (that's DJ to gcc maintainers, I think) could take this up with gcc maintainers, so we can have an official statement from them on how they think it should/could work? So far all I've seen a lot of evidence that these gcc headers won't/can't work. And no evidence of advantages or why this is a good idea. Right, MartinS
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |