Date:	Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:18:59 -0400
Message-Id:	<200007202318.TAA01213@envy.delorie.com>
From:	DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To:	mrs AT windriver DOT com
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org
In-reply-to:	<200007202308.QAA06365@kankakee.wrs.com> (message from Mike Stump
	on Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:08:48 -0700 (PDT))
Subject:	Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
References:	<200007202308 DOT QAA06365 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

> While you may like that definition, we feel that is the wrong
> definition.

DJGPP is a very old system.  When we made that decision, it was based
on experience building huge C++ programs at Cabletron, and what the
ANSI spec required.  This was way before the whole __null thing.

When gcc added __null, the djgpp lists got a flood of user complaints
because their programs wouldn't compile any more.  We want to avoid
that happening again, or ever.

> You can either, change it to be what we feel is right, or ignore us.

Oh, cut the attitude.  We came here to try to find a solution that we
all could live with, so that we could reduce (or eliminate) all the
problems we have with new gcc releases conflicting with old djgpp
headers.  We've been asking technical questions and giving technical
answers to your questions.  We want to do the right thing.  We just
don't want to harm our users when we do it, or cause a maintenance
nightmare, so we're being careful.  There's no need to get mad at us
because we won't take your opinions as fact without questioning them.

- Raw text -