Date:	Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:26:49 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id:	<200007191826.OAA08696@indy.delorie.com>
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To:	mrs AT windriver DOT com
CC:	martin AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
	gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org
In-reply-to:	<200007190346.UAA01039@kankakee.wrs.com> (message from Mike Stump
	on Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:46:05 -0700 (PDT))
Subject:	Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
References:	<200007190346 DOT UAA01039 AT kankakee DOT wrs DOT com>
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

> From: Mike Stump <mrs AT windriver DOT com>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> Well, I reviewed stddef.h, as it is one of the culprits.  After
> reading it, I came to the conclusion that we can probably eject it
> from the compiler safely.

That is wonderful news!  Thanks.

> We can even autoconf the target headers, and provide it, if the target
> doesn't (to be backward compatible with systems that didn't have it
> because of gcc), and to not provide it, if the target system has one.

Yes, I think this should be the best solution, that would avoid
breaking systems which need the version of the headers that GCC
supplies.

> The other headers, like varargs.h, might as well be in the compiler.
> The compiler has to be able to generate code, assuming it does this,
> it _must_ know about the varargs mechanism.  Because it already must
> know about it, it doesn't require any more information to have gcc
> provide stdarg.h and varargs.h, because the compiler generates them,
> they are consistent with the compiler, and cannot be wrong (experts
> need not correct me, I know this is a lie).

I think I understand why stdarg.h and varargs.h need to come with the
compiler.  Are there any other headers that are in that category?  I
think not, but maybe I'm missing something.

If only the va_* macros need to be defined by the compiler
distribution, I think it should be very easy to modify DJGPP system
headers to use them instead of our versions (or in addition to them,
if the need arises).

> Bottom line, If you want to do up patches to autoconf for stddef.h,
> assert.h and iso646.h and not install them if the system already has
> them, I'd invite you to, I don't think anyone will argue to keep them.

Yes, I think this is what we would like to do.

> Before we do this, I'd like a person like drepper to buy into it as
> well, though I don't think he'll mind.

Ulrich, could you please comment on this?

> varargs.h, I think we should reject

Agreed.

> and other headers I think we'd need to talk about specifically and
> weigh the issues.

Could you tell what other headers do we need to consider?

- Raw text -