Message-ID:	<39743532.D6605609@softhome.net>
Date:	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:45:06 +0200
From:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	lt,en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
References:	<200007180918 DOT FAA06988 AT indy DOT delorie DOT com>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

[Taken back to djgpp-workers only]

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> Anyway, one reason that __null might cause trouble is that it breaks
> previous versions of the library which were compiled with different
> definition of NULL.  

I doubt that both definitions of NULL map to something different from
0x00000000 at binary level. Also, as I've checked stddef.h from GCC,
__null is for C++ only. Given that C++ compiler breaks ABI compatibility
with every new version, this is not a problem.

> I think we've been discussing that on the DJGPP
> developers list to death.

Yes. We're getting tired from this.

> > + #undef SIZE_TYPE
> > + #define SIZE_TYPE "long unsigned int"
> 
> Do I understand correctly that this should go into GCC distribution?

Yes.

> If so, I don't think I mind too much.  It does introduce a dependency
> between the library and the compiler, which is unfortunate.  I think
> we need to discuss this on the DJGPP devlopers' list.

IMHO this is the best solution from the ones we can choose from. GCC will
know what size_t etc. DJGPP needs. We could be sure about what GCC headers
provide. If GCC defaults will change in future, our target will override
them anyway.

I want to see this thing solved, although not necesarry in politically correct
way. It is interesting why only DJGPP and *BSD have faced this kind of 
problems so far, and all other ports which play by GCC rules keep quiet.
Let's leave those headers for GCC this time, if they want that very much.

Laurynas

- Raw text -