Message-ID:	<20010207171904.1222.qmail@lauras.lt>
From:	"Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date:	Wed, 7 Feb 2001 19:19:04 +0200
To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: trouble with MSDOS Macro
Mail-Followup-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
References:	<3A8028E6 DOT E6F57836 AT gmx DOT de> <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010207082225 DOT 2148I-100000 AT is>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.12i
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010207082225.2148I-100000@is>; from eliz@is.elta.co.il on Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:24:58AM +0200
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

On Wed, Feb 07, 2001 at 08:24:58AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Well OK. But it isn't documented. I just searched for "MSDOS" and I
> > could find anything about this macro. So if this is all intended the way
> > it is by DJ Delorie then it should be documented.
> 
> Can anyone suggest where to document this?

In UG and KB. GCC manuals don't have any section for target
specific defines. It would be nice to have one. (Don't ask
me if I volunteer for this. I don't know yet ;-)

> [Which reminds me, once again, how many things, most of them not 
> DJGPP-specific, are missing from the GCC manual, sigh...]

GCC developers realize it, but well, GCC has its own problems - 
it is veeery big, lacking manpower, and entry for new hackers
is very steep. (For example, I'm digging mostly in build system,
and its backend is still beyond me). All of this tells why
GCC is lacking many things.

- Raw text -