Message-ID:	<39211E30.DBF7E305@softhome.net>
Date:	Tue, 16 May 2000 13:08:48 +0300
From:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
Subject:	Re: more gcc issues
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000515194536 DOT 12234M-100000 AT is>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

It seems (still not 100%) that GCC maintainers are willing
to use #include_next in their headers and this will make
our life easier.

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 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.

I don't think that working around bugs in non-free software is favoring it.
This would mean that e.g. Andris does a very bad job with his 2.95.2 port
when he splits bootstrap to work around windows DPMI selector leak.

> 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.

And if they will use #include_next there?

Laurynas Biveinis

- Raw text -