Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2000/07/23/16:55:41
> Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:20:26 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
> To: law AT cygnus DOT com
> I believe I addressed the issues you raised in other messages. The
> above referred to a suggestion originally made by Mike (to remove
> stddef.h and possibly other headers based on Autoconf test).
It is a modification to the scheme I suggested. I can support the
scheme I suggested, and I would argue here for it, if it helps you. I
am happy to do this. I wasn't going to say anything about the change
to the scheme you suggest, as I think my previous point was clear as
to where I stood on that issue. I, personally, would not argue for
such a modification. I'd argue against it. Now, that doesn't mean
that it can't go in, bear in mind, I am but one member of the list,
just one reader. In the end, the maintainers (I am not presently one)
make the decisions, based in part on all the concerns and ideas other
might present and of course their experience, knowledge and skill.
The problem is that mirrored configury bits that are just like other
bits, but different is one of the most glaring `bad design' issues in
the compiler that I know. I support the unification and removal of
the duplicate bits. By configuring the headers some ways on some
machines and some ways on other machines, I feel we contribute to this
`bad design'. For this reason, I am against your modification to my
scheme. I'd rather simplify it, and risk the bugs, and fix any that
might arise, than do as you suggest.
Take a look at config/*/* and you'll start to see what I mean.
- Raw text -