Message-ID:	<3974477C.5D165057@softhome.net>
Date:	Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:03:08 +0200
From:	Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.73 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	lt,en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000718142428 DOT 2467D-100000 AT is>
Reply-To:	djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > 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.  

I agree. But what if some GCC features will stop working if they expect
particular builtins in headers?

> > 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?  

I mean almost _all_ other platforms. grep shows few ports which do 
not install GCC header files. But they're unmaintained.

Laurynas

- Raw text -