Date:	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 21:13:22 +0200
Message-Id:	<200007181913.VAA01170@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de>
From:	"Martin v. Loewis" <martin AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de>
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
CC:	lauras AT softhome DOT net, mrs AT windriver DOT com, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org,
	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<200007180918.FAA06988@indy.delorie.com> (message from Eli
	Zaretskii on Tue, 18 Jul 2000 05:18:06 -0400 (EDT))
Subject:	Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
References:	<200007180918 DOT FAA06988 AT indy DOT delorie DOT com>
User-Agent:	SEMI/1.13.3 (Komaiko) FLIM/1.12.5 (Hirahata) Emacs/20.4 (i586-pc-linux-gnu) MULE/4.0 (HANANOEN)
MIME-Version:	1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.13.3 - "Komaiko")
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

> Is __null a builtin in the C compiler?

Not in the C compiler, only in the C++ compiler

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

And did these discussions come to a conclusion, or did everybody die
before that? If there was a conclusion, can you summarize why __null
might break previous versions of the library?

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

Yes, in the target header files.

> 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.

It doesn't introduce the dependency, the dependency is already there.

Regards,
Martin

- Raw text -