From:	lauras AT softhome DOT net
Message-ID:	<20010707175034.2473.qmail@softhome.net>
References:	<20010707153645 DOT 23586 DOT qmail AT softhome DOT net>
	<5567-Sat07Jul2001195847+0300-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
In-Reply-To:	<5567-Sat07Jul2001195847+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Comments on GCC 3.0 distribution
Date:	Sat, 07 Jul 2001 17:50:34 GMT
Mime-Version:	1.0
X-Sender:	lauras AT softhome DOT net
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii writes:

> Thanks.  But I'm still worried a bit: what about all those additional
> definitions we have in our headers which are private to DJGPP, or at
> least absent from the GCC headers?  How will they be pulled in by GCC
> if it doesn't always do a include_next, and even when the header does
> include_next, I'm not convinced that really works in our case?

<limits.h> from GCC does include_next, and at least it worked a year ago.
I don't know if it is broken now. Probably it isn't. As far as <stdarg.h>
and
<stddef.h> are concerned, we don't have any non-standard definitions there,
do we? Yes, I know that this is pretty poor answer, but at least we don't 
have this problem right now.

Laurynas

- Raw text -