Message-ID: <392009C8.BF657179@softhome.net>
Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 17:29:28 +0300
From: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language: en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
CC: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>, Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Subject: Re: more gcc issues
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000514100008 DOT 26827G AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> More importantly, I'm not sure I understand what are the reasons for
> forcing the use of GCC headers.  If Andris can solve the problem by
> simply not using those headers, it would seem that whatever clever
> tricks those headers do, we don't need them, right?  If so, why do GCC
> maintainers are so eager we use them?

GCC maintainers may have a point there, even if they can't express it politely.
It is possible that e.g. <stdarg.h> contains GCCisms which allow generating
more efficient code, uses builtins, etc. On systems where GCC isn't primary
compiler, this could be a problem. On DJGPP we just already have GCC-tailored
headers, that's it.

Laurynas Biveinis