From:	Mike Stump <mrs AT windriver DOT com>
Date:	Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id:	<200007230030.RAA01643@kankakee.wrs.com>
To:	eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il, law AT cygnus DOT com
Subject:	Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 18:36:29 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
> To: law AT cygnus DOT com

> > I would be willing to consider not installing if and only if we
> > know the system versions are correct.  Just saying yours are
> > correct isn't sufficient, you actually have to test them.

> You mean, tested by the configure script?  Please tell what features
> need to be tested, and we will try to submit the necessary changes to
> the configury.

I think he probably meant tested on all systems in all ways, once by
hand.

Anyway, if we know of classes of reasons why a native stddef.h might
not be what we want to do, we could either fixincludes it or autoconf
and not use it if we don't like it.

> We already discussed that possibility at length on the DJGPP
> developer's list, and arrived at a conclusion that it is much easier
> for us to use our headers.

And is it also much easier for you to test all systems that gcc has
ever been build for and verify your new patches are right?  See, being
ok on just your system isn't good enough to do a change...

While we could do it one way on some systems and other ways on other
systems, this creates long term configury hair I think it would be
best to avoid, if we can.

- Raw text -