From:	Mike Stump <mrs AT windriver DOT com>
Date:	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 13:25:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id:	<200007202025.NAA01726@kankakee.wrs.com>
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il
Subject:	Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org,
	martin AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:41:28 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
> To: mrs AT windriver DOT com

> > From: Mike Stump <mrs AT windriver DOT com>
> > Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:35:28 -0700 (PDT)
>
> If you mean that we should submit patches to the GCC maintainers to
> fix the headers installed by GCC, then that's a maintenance burden we
> would like to avoid, at least for the headers that there's no real
> need for GCC to install.

> In other words, we would like to make the DJGPP library development
> as independent from GCC development as possible, so that there would
> be no immediate need to release a new library version every time a
> new version of GCC is released, and no need for the users to
> download a new GCC version each time a new library release is out.

You have three options, either submit the work to make them more
independent, submit the work to make gcc agree, or don't make them
work together (no work).  Let me know which option you want to pursue
and I can help you.  I am confused, as I don't yet know which route
you hacve decided to pursue.

- Raw text -