Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 15:19:11 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: GCC and the rest of us, again
In-Reply-To: <200006261507.LAA12752@envy.delorie.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000627151801.19259C-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, 26 Jun 2000, DJ Delorie wrote:

> The fact that assert() is a borderline case doesn't change the design
> decision that gcc-compiled objects may depend on libgcc.a to link.

`assert' is ANSI, unlike long long and other features in libgcc.

But I was mostly talking about the reaction to the report.  Mistakes
do happen (it seems like this particular one comes from a distant past
when there was no other safe way to implement `assert'), but when
someone reports such a problem, that's when maintainer's attitude
clearly shows.  The fact that the general problem might not have a
solution does not mean that a particular problem should not be solved,
if it bugs someone.