Message-ID: <39211E30.DBF7E305@softhome.net>
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000 13:08:48 +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: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
Subject: Re: more gcc issues
References: <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000515194536 DOT 12234M-100000 AT is>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

It seems (still not 100%) that GCC maintainers are willing
to use #include_next in their headers and this will make
our life easier.

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 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.

I don't think that working around bugs in non-free software is favoring it.
This would mean that e.g. Andris does a very bad job with his 2.95.2 port
when he splits bootstrap to work around windows DPMI selector leak.

> 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.

And if they will use #include_next there?

Laurynas Biveinis