Mail Archives: djgpp-workers/2000/07/18/07:33:24
On Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:
> I doubt that both definitions of NULL map to something different from
> 0x00000000 at binary level.
We need them to resolve to the same at compile time, otherwise the
compiler complains.
> I want to see this thing solved, although not necesarry in politically correct
> way.
Me too, believe me. But if the best solution that GCC maintainers would
have means more work for us and more FAQs than we can handle, perhaps the
``dirty'' solution of removing the headers GCC wants to use is the
easiest way out. The insane rate of GCC development and mostly CVS-based
distribution might be good enough to cover up any problems for GCC
developers, but we only make releases once a year at best, and don't have
enough resources to risk major flops.
> It is interesting why only DJGPP and *BSD have faced this kind of
> problems so far, and all other ports which play by GCC rules keep quiet.
What other platforms? If you mean glibc, their development rate (and the
rate they break compatibility) is even greater. When development rates
are so high, and the user support is non-existent (everybody is supposed
to be their own guru), no bug is important enough, since a new version
will be available in a few days ;-).
> Let's leave those headers for GCC this time, if they want that very much.
I don't think we have an argument here, at least not with me.
- Raw text -