Date:	Mon, 15 May 2000 19:51:31 +0300 (IDT)
From:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender:	eliz AT is
To:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
Subject:	Re: more gcc issues
In-Reply-To:	<39200B7B.679C568C@softhome.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000515194536.12234M-100000@is>
MIME-Version:	1.0
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 Mon, 15 May 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> > Note how many system-dependent defines does it have; why should it be
> > a problem to add some random #ifdef __DJGPP__?
> 
> I bet GCC maintainers won't be very happy to increase ad-hoc there - most
> of those #ifdef are caused by headers in commercial libc, where problems are
> kinda hard to fix at libc's side.

So you are in effect saying that the GCC maintainers favor non-free 
software?  It doesn't seem right to me; if that is indeed how GCC 
maintainers feel, I'd even go as far as writing to Richard Stallman 
about this problem.

But I don't think it would be fair to do that before we ask them 
explicitly to make these changes and hear "take a leap" or something.

> So I vote for adjusting our headers.

I'm not sure this is possible, nor id it clear to me that this is at all 
a solution.

GCC doesn't want us to adjust our headers, it wants us to *replace* them!
If we cannot influence the GCC maintainers to make some changes that 
would make their headers do what's right for us and then use
#include_next to get all the rest of stuff that we have in our headers, 
then no amount of ``fixing'' will ever gonna solve this problem.

Am I missing something obvious?

- Raw text -