From:	Mike Stump <mrs AT windriver DOT com>
Date:	Sat, 22 Jul 2000 15:19:20 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id:	<200007222219.PAA01604@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: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 05:19:10 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
> To: mrs AT windriver DOT com

> What I am trying to do is help arrive at an acceptable way of solving
> the problem, so that those who will actually do the work would avoid
> submitting patches which will be rejected.

> Is it okay with you to discuss the remaining few headers that are
> relevant to C programs, and see which of them need to be installed by
> GCC and which can be left out?

Sure.  But only on the condition you stated above, that there _is_ in
fact a problem.

> If it's okay with you, I'd like to discuss limits.h (and syslimits.h
> that is related to it) first.  Why is it necessary for GCC to install
> its own version of this header?

Wrong question.  I'll answer it anyway, because it is best.  It is
best, because gcc already knows so much about the target system, that
it can generate this file.

A way of approaching this, would be to explain to me the problem this
causes, slowly, so that I can understand the issues, and we can work
out a solution to the problems encountered.  Also, we cannot solve
problems, without being made aware of them.  I'm not aware of too many
problems that limits.h should cause.  They two biggest problems I see
is that we have a brittle way of handling sizeof(int) == 2 and
sizeof(long)==8, that should be cleaned up and made robust.

- Raw text -