Date:	Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:58:08 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Patch: sentinels for typedefs in headers
In-Reply-To:	<200006141013.MAA19472@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000614134852.29611Q-100000@is>
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

On Wed, 14 Jun 2000, Martin Stromberg wrote:

> 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? 

I join the plea (if DJ can afford that ;-).

However, I also think that Andris, Mark, and Laurynas have such an 
official standing as well.  So it strikes me that the real reason we 
didn't get any response to Laurynas's question the other day is that
the maintainers don't want to grant us any response...

> 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. 

If learning by example is any good, consider this.  In a discussion about 
the strict aliasing, which took place on the GCC list several months ago,
it took Richard Stallman himself a long series of messages to get the 
GCC maintainers to even _partially_ agree that strict aliasing by default
just _might_ be a bad idea.  Those who know how eloquently Richard writes 
to make his points, how profound is his authority among GNU maintainers, 
and how important must an issue be for him to enter a long discussion, 
can draw his/her own conclusions...

- Raw text -