Date: Sun, 14 May 2000 10:12:45 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: more gcc issues
In-Reply-To: <391DF708.30420.3CA474@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000514100636.26827H-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk


On Sun, 14 May 2000, Mark E. wrote:

> Yes. Here is what gcc 2.96 will install in
> $DJDIR/lib/gcc-lib/djgpp/2.96/include:

Install??  How can they install their own float.h or limits.h, say, and 
hope that it DTRT with some random libc.a?

More importantly, I cannot figure out why would GCC need to force the 
user to use a specific limits.h?  Can someone explain?

If "GCC 3.0 should work without changes" includes the "make install" 
target, then I'd say we have a serious problem on our hands.

> syslimits.h
> iso646.h
> proto.h
> stdarg.h
> stdbool.h
> stddef.h
> varargs.h
> exception
> exception.h
> cxxabi.h
> limits.h
> float.h
> new
> new.h
> typeinfo

I don't think we should care about the C++ headers (since they are
probably identical to those which come with libstdc++), but for the C
headers, IMHO someone should go through the differences between our
headers and the ones which come with GCC and see what problems that might
make and what should we do about them.