Message-ID: <B0000054128@stargate.astr.lu.lv>
From: "Andris Pavenis" <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 1998 19:00:30 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: djgpp 2.02 zips - please test
In-reply-to: <199812071646.LAA23533@envy.delorie.com>
References: <B0000053940 AT stargate DOT astr DOT lu DOT lv> (pavenis AT lanet DOT lv)
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.01d)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

On 7 Dec 98, at 11:46, DJ Delorie wrote:

> 
> > I found '#include <sys/version.h>' only in stdio.h and go32.h. I think
> > sys/version.h is best way how to define minor version of DJGPP
> > (and it should be no more done from specs). However I think it would 
> > be best to include from more standard header files (for example stdlib.h,
> > stddef.h,...). 
> 
> Why?  It only needs to be in one.  That way, programs that need to
> correctly detect 2.02 can just #include <stdio.h> and then they'll
> know that __DJGPP_MINOR__ will be set correctly.
> 

Simply philosophical question: which is best of standard header files
where to put this definition - I would prefer stddef.h or stdlib.h but also
stdio.h will work Ok

> > specs file is thing that belongs to gcc distribution, therefore
> > I think it should be distributed only there. We also may may need to change 
> > it when  compiler version is changed, which cannot be done easily when
> > specs file is distributed somewhere else.
> 
> When gcc 2.7.* is no longer an issue, we can do that.
> 

Then maybe really it is worth to remove specs from djdev202. Such removal
will break gcc-2.7.* but if we are dropping support for it then there is no more
such problem.

Even more: somebody may want to have more than one compiler installed
simultanously and each one can have separate and different specs file when 
there is no such file in $DJDIR/lib. For example egcs and pgcc. 

Andris