From:	pavenis AT lanet DOT lv
To:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date:	Tue, 16 May 2000 14:58:27 +0200
MIME-Version:	1.0
Subject:	Re: more gcc issues
Message-ID:	<39216213.26876.882E23@localhost>
In-reply-to:	<39211E30.DBF7E305@softhome.net>
X-mailer:	Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
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 16 May 2000, at 13:08, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> 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.
> 

I'm also don't like it, but I don't want to have to restart make (and to 
figure out whether some cleanup is needed before restarting).
I prefer to start building gcc before I'm leaving for some time and
to see results of build (not a message about crash) after I come back

Anyway last may build of gcc-2.95.2 in end of March (not uploaded)
was done under Linux using cross-compiler. So I got rid of Win9X
descriptor leak problems. If there will be release of gcc-2.95.3 I'll
perhaps build it this way (not under Win9X)

Andris

- Raw text -