Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 11:41:46 +0200 (IST)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: andrewc AT rosemail DOT rose DOT hp DOT com
cc: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>, robert DOT hoehne AT gmx DOT net,
        djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: iostream concern
In-Reply-To: <199801290902.AA068634549@typhoon.rose.hp.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.980129113743.6822S-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk


On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Andrew Crabtree wrote:

> > Shouldn't we just fix the djgpp includes, rather than letting gcc
> > "fix" them itself?  I've *never* run fixincludes on djgpp's includes.
> There are two parts to this.  The first is fixincludes, which is 
> very easy to disable in the configure.in file.

Is this change in configure.in generic enough to be sent to GCC 
maintainers?  If it is, I think we should submit it and prevent GCC from 
running fixincludes in the DJGPP case.

> The second is the 
> part that supplies the generated stddef.h file and such.  This too
> can be disabled I think.

How is the generated stddef.h different from ours?  Can we just make the 
necessary changes in our version and forget about this?