Date:	Sat, 13 May 2000 17:24:58 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id:	<200005132124.RAA16266@indy.delorie.com>
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To:	"Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to:	<391D4709.24006.260204@localhost> (snowball3@bigfoot.com)
Subject:	Re: more gcc issues
References:	<391D4709 DOT 24006 DOT 260204 AT localhost>
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

> From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
> Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 12:14:01 -0400
> 
> In researching the solution to redefinition warnings when compiling
> gcc 2.96, I found that the gcc folks have a strong desire (to put it
> nicely) for ports to the headers provided by gcc instead of the one
> provided by libc.

I don't like that attitude, but the question is: what does that mean
in practical terms?  Do GCC-supplied headers contradict ours to the
degree that it's impractical to make them compatible?  If so, we
should fight that attitude.

Last time I built GCC from scratch (which was a very long time ago),
the GCC-supplied headers were only required for building stage1 of the
compiler.  After that, you used the stage-1 binary in conjunction with
your normal system headers.  Did that change?

Could you, or someone else, post a summary of the current situation
and related problems, as far as DJGPP is concerned?

- Raw text -