From:	Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Message-Id:	<200006141120.NAA19541@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject:	Re: Patch: sentinels for typedefs in headers
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Wed, 14 Jun 2000 13:20:30 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000614134852.29611Q-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jun 14, 2000 01:58:08 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

> 
> 
> 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...

I surely didn't mean to detract from other good people's good
work. Surely everyone in this mailing list know that we have them to
thank for much, and that they have this official standing here. The
problem might be that they perhaps don't among gcc maintainers

So I interpreted this no-answer-attitude as the gcc maintainers
thinking they have another newbie whining at them, when e. g. Laurynas
asked them. Hence making me think that the person who ported gcc to
DOZE might have a better chance of getting a response.


An other idea: perhaps Laurenyas could ask that (exactly same)
question again. Perhaps we will get an answer if we are persistent?


Right,

							MartinS

- Raw text -