X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 17:28:55 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii (eliz AT gnu DOT org)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE: DJGPP 2.05 beta 1
In-reply-to: <CAA2C=vCk5MY74z+HNVzzdLByg71Y_9ObK-1jPxJ_KF8eqRDZMQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-012-Sender: halo1 AT inter DOT net DOT il
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Message-id: <83zj52dkns.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <201505042003 DOT t44K3odg011007 AT delorie DOT com> <CAA2C=vAjN-HamFRWCQak=QF_NPjR5-TBYZw1U5707MO0b=qXkw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <554DF584 DOT 4020309 AT iki DOT fi> <CAA2C=vDaOJb_RW2bQEFoM_cqwp7yhzwX-CB328r5GCCi6XcooA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <55501DAD DOT 1080604 AT iki DOT fi> <CAA2C=vAvMW-yquZLSN=Z39NU24Kqf7urjan90801i7BDTdqOvQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <55579278 DOT 8090301 AT iki DOT fi> <CAA2C=vBaQKzmch_buxFm20DJLcG+zv6d6803+qMEx=baA4Frog AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <555829A6 DOT 8010502 AT iki DOT fi> <CAA2C=vA73qPvoDFytp3FeW6bCD1-XuGsFFoDinoKn2KYY1fkow AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <555870E8 DOT 7040302 AT iki DOT fi> <CAA2C=vDhD6BJj89o1i0FRd2U0H4bTpGGN4zH6qs7FJKxzqhuQg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <201505180114 DOT t4I1EiaX017288 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <CAA2C=vCyrQ_+Yq6XsRD-UO4r=j9WoGGiXoqQFrkbiEQpzX+=MA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <201505181216 DOT t4ICGaKO014123 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com> <CAA2C=vCk5MY74z+HNVzzdLByg71Y_9ObK-1jPxJ_KF8eqRDZMQ AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

> Date: Mon, 18 May 2015 16:06:19 +0300
> From: "Ozkan Sezer (sezeroz AT gmail DOT com)" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
> 
> The discussion is about we are pointing to gcc's headers directory
> for allowed includes when building djgpp itself, whereas
> 
> (i) we don't need that at all anymore (it was done only to work around
> a gcc builtin problem and it got solved without needing this hack),
> 
> (ii) we are building with -nostdinc which means we are self-
> sufficient, and that hack is against this,
> 
> (iii) since our DBL_MAX, etc are not compile time constants but symbols,
> and gcc ones are, the binary output of several djgpp functions such as
> strtod, etc, are different with and without gcc-headers hack.
> 
> Those are the reasons I am against allowing gcc's headers in djgpp
> build.

AFAIR, -nostdinc means without library headers, but it does not
preclude the headers that are internal to the compiler.

IOW, I'm not sure I understand the problem you have with what we do.
Can you elaborate?