Date:	Tue, 16 May 2000 16:54:13 +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:	<39211E30.DBF7E305@softhome.net>
Message-ID:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1000516164701.25864B-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 Tue, 16 May 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> 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.

If GCC maintainers are willing to make changes because of problems in 
non-free software, but are unwilling to make similar changes for the 
benefit of free software, that's unfair discrimination of the latter.

> 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 not saying that working around bugs on non-free OS is a bad thing.
I'm saying that I'd expect the same good will to solve our problems as 
they have for Solaris, say.

> > 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?

Then it *might* work; we need to make sure that the stuff which comes 
before #include_next does not contradict our headers.  However, if
it indeed doesn't contradict our headers, then there's no need for GCC to 
force us to use their headers in the first place.  So I'm afraid we 
*will* see some conflicts, even with #include_next.

- Raw text -