Date:	Wed, 26 Jun 2002 17:04:40 +0100
From:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer:	The Bat! (v1.60h) Personal
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
Message-ID:	<163254385937.20020626170440@softhome.net>
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC:	sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Subject:	Re: DJGPP CVS & gcc 3.1 [patch included]
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1020603074214.19041B-100000@is>
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1020603074214 DOT 19041B-100000 AT is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-OriginalArrivalTime:	26 Jun 2002 15:05:45.0295 (UTC) FILETIME=[F26A6DF0:01C21D22]
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

> These dependencies on headers which come with GCC are precisely the 
> nightmare we were afraid of back when we tried to talk with GCC 
> maintainers.  We are lucky a refresh was in the works this time anyhow.  
> In the future, we won't be so lucky, unless someone volunteers to upgrade 
> djdev each time GCC gives us this kind of trouble.

IMHO all this problem was a result of a serious miscommunication
between us and djgpp developers. DJGPP was the only libc which was
talking loudly about those header files. glibc, *BSD developers,
porters to numerous other systems avoided or at least silently solved
these issues.

IIRC, this problem was solved The Right Way when we
put our type definitions to djgpp target configuration files in GCC.
End of story, I hope :)

Laurynas

- Raw text -