Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 19:51:31 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Laurynas Biveinis cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, "Mark E." Subject: Re: more gcc issues In-Reply-To: <39200B7B.679C568C@softhome.net> Message-ID: 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 Mon, 15 May 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote: > > Note how many system-dependent defines does it have; why should it be > > a problem to add some random #ifdef __DJGPP__? > > I bet GCC maintainers won't be very happy to increase ad-hoc there - most > of those #ifdef are caused by headers in commercial libc, where problems are > kinda hard to fix at libc's side. So you are in effect saying that the GCC maintainers favor non-free software? It doesn't seem right to me; if that is indeed how GCC maintainers feel, I'd even go as far as writing to Richard Stallman about this problem. But I don't think it would be fair to do that before we ask them explicitly to make these changes and hear "take a leap" or something. > So I vote for adjusting our headers. I'm not sure this is possible, nor id it clear to me that this is at all a solution. GCC doesn't want us to adjust our headers, it wants us to *replace* them! If we cannot influence the GCC maintainers to make some changes that would make their headers do what's right for us and then use #include_next to get all the rest of stuff that we have in our headers, then no amount of ``fixing'' will ever gonna solve this problem. Am I missing something obvious?