Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 20:16:39 +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: <391FE838.15569.5FC19@localhost>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000515201459.13281B-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 Mon, 15 May 2000, Mark E. wrote:

> > Is there any reason not to ask GCC maintainers to do that in float.h as 
> > well?
> > 
> 
> I did some checking in the sources, and generation of float.h for a system 
> can easily be disabled. Whether they accept such a patch given their attitude 
> is another matter.

FWIW, I don't even understand why float.h is on the list of affected 
headers.  I can imagine why stdarg.h would, but why float.h?

If the reason(s) are grave, I can understand why they won't agree.  But 
then disabling the header won't solve the problem anyway...