From: Martin Stromberg <Martin DOT Stromberg AT lu DOT erisoft DOT se>
Message-Id: <200006141013.MAA19472@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: Patch: sentinels for typedefs in headers
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 12:13:22 +0200 (MET DST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000614121827.29091K-100000@is> from "Eli Zaretskii" at Jun 14, 2000 12:18:53 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

[Endless discussion about gcc headers deleted. ]

Perhaps someone with some official standing in DJGPP (that's DJ to gcc
maintainers, I think) could take this up with gcc maintainers, so we
can have an official statement from them on how they think it
should/could work? 

So far all I've seen a lot of evidence that these gcc headers
won't/can't work. And no evidence of advantages or why this is a good
idea. 


Right,

							MartinS