From:	"Tim Van Holder" <tim DOT van DOT holder AT pandora DOT be>
To:	<djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: About release of gcc-2.95.3 for DJGPP
Date:	Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:01:36 +0100
Message-ID:	<CAEGKOHJKAAFPKOCLHDIOEMCCBAA.tim.van.holder@pandora.be>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To:	<3AB730FE.3941.34C8F0@localhost>
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Importance:	Normal
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

> Tested: I'm getting foo.da, foo.bb and foo.bbg. So also here the 
> conflicts are possible (foo.c and foo.h ==> foo.da, foo.bb, ...)
Actually, no.  I looked into the .bb files on Linux, and they
apparently contain info for both foo.c and foo.h. The test-coverage
files are based on preprocessed sources, so the relevant headers
would already be present (though their code would likely be
duplicated in the .bb file for each source that includes them).
There's only a conflict if someone does 'gcc -x c++ -c foo.h', I
thinks.

- Raw text -