Date:	Sun, 23 Jul 2000 07:08:42 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id:	<200007231108.HAA13300@indy.delorie.com>
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To:	mrs AT windriver DOT com
CC:	law AT cygnus DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org
In-reply-to:	<200007230030.RAA01643@kankakee.wrs.com> (message from Mike Stump
	on Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:30:18 -0700 (PDT))
Subject:	Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
References:	<200007230030 DOT RAA01643 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

> From: Mike Stump <mrs AT windriver DOT com>
> Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:30:18 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > 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?

I don't know how to reply to that.  Any change can potentially break
something somewhere, and requires testing on all supported platforms.

At the end of the day, I trust you, the GCC maintainers, to draw the
line: to find a reasonable way to make the changes in such a manner
that will minimize the risks for other platforms while still not
causing stagnation.  This includes any guidance and requirements you
might have for us to submit patches in a way that suits your judgement
of the risks on the one hand and the benefits on the other.

However, if the general trend of minimizing the dependencies between
GCC and the system headers, at least in the case of DJGPP, is not
something you are willing to accept, these considerations become a
moot point.

- Raw text -