Message-ID:	<397DBA33.D1389F7C@softhome.net>
Date:	Tue, 25 Jul 2000 18:02:59 +0200
From:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	lt,en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC:	DJGPP Workers <djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000725131423 DOT 24081A-100000 AT is>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> I'm not sure.  In the couple of Mike Stump's messages that did make
> sense, he said that stddef.h and assert.h can go.  He even offered help
> in doing so.  And Zack said that limits.h causes more trouble than it's
> worth and ``should die''.
> 
> So at least for these headers, some of the maintainers might favor
> our view and agree to the patches which remove them (for all systems, not
> just for us, so USER_H should not be involved).

Will see what I can do there. However, not very soon, because I even
don't have copyright assignment filed.

> If that succeeds, it will leave us with stdbool.h, iso646.h, which are
> mostly harmless, and possibly float.h/math.h (I couldn't figure out if
> these are or aren't installed, different people said different things).
> We could deal with those when we get there.

Float.h isn't installed nowadays.

> I'd want to see each of the GCC's headers that will get such treatment,
> before I could form an opinion.  Up to now, we only discussed stddef.h in
> detail.

If we solve stddef.h, we solve basically everything. Stddef.h is a major
problem.

Laurynas

- Raw text -