Message-ID: <393E4161.50C3D500@softhome.net> Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2000 15:34:41 +0300 From: Laurynas Biveinis X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.72 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: DJGPP Workers Subject: [Fwd: Re: GCC and system headers] Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: GCC and system headers Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2000 00:11:22 +0200 From: Marc Espie Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure (quatramaran) To: lauras AT softhome DOT net CC: gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org In article <393D3934 DOT 8AB76C44 AT softhome DOT net> you write: >Hello, > >could somebody explain what are the technical reasons for >not allowing ports to choose if they want to use standard >headers provided by GCC? Many times I've seen on this >mailing list that 'overriding USER_H is a brain-damaged >feature' without explanation *how* it is brain-damaged. > >Thanks in advance, >Laurynas Biveinis > It's standard policy from the gcc development team. Using USER_H means not using gcc headers, and overriding them with the system headers. Since the FSF goal is to promote gcc as a standard portable compiler, USER_H goes against this goal. Also, they would rather support fixincludes, and not be bothered with system inadequacies that USER_H is likely to stumble onto. Of course, other groups (the OpenBSD project for instance) which use gcc as a system compiler have rather conflicting goals. We would rather *not* use fixinc, as it tends to produce a mess of modified headers with #include_next and what not which is not... too clean, compared to what we would like our system headers to hold. I would say that it's unlikely either camp is going to budge, since both are utterly convinced they're doing the right thing. As a token offer, I'm trying to ensure the FSF way does work correctly on OpenBSD, though recent snapshots got me stumped on a varargs problems which I haven't yet figured out...