Date:	Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:33:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id:	<200007222233.SAA12647@indy.delorie.com>
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To:	law AT cygnus DOT com
CC:	mmckinlay AT gnu DOT org, martin AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de, mrs AT windriver DOT com,
	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org
In-reply-to:	<10216.964282238@upchuck> (message from Jeffrey A Law on Sat, 22
	Jul 2000 10:10:38 -0600)
Subject:	Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
References:	<10216 DOT 964282238 AT upchuck>
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

> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 10:10:38 -0600
> From: Jeffrey A Law <law AT cygnus DOT com>
>
> I would love to see this happen too, but I'm not going to agree to install
> changes which are fundamentally wrong

That's why we started this thread--to understand what isn't wrong in
your opinion, so that changes are not rejected after someone has
labored on them.

> such as overriding USER_H.

Sorry, I don't know what USER_H is.  And I don't think we were talking
about using it.  As far as I understood, we were talking about a
configury change that would find out whether certain headers, such as
stddef.h and assert.h, are already provided by the target system, and
if so, refrain from installing GCC's versions.

Would that approach be generally acceptable?

> We also
> have to be practical and realize that DOS is a severely braindamaged system
> and we shouldn't compromise our ability to DTRT on other platforms just to
> make DOS happy.

I don't think anybody wants to compromise GCC's ability on other
platforms.  It is perfectly clear that any DJGPP-related changes
should not hamper other platforms in any way.

In any case, the changes we are discussing have nothing to do with DOS
per se.

- Raw text -