Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 12:23:25 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: Laurynas Biveinis <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
In-Reply-To: <39741C0A.148E362F@softhome.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000718121940.1391K-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 Tue, 18 Jul 2000, Laurynas Biveinis wrote:

> I don't see any reasons (except for patch reviewal speed) why Mark's patch
> shouldn't be accepted
> 
> + #undef SIZE_TYPE
> + #define SIZE_TYPE "long unsigned int"

I'm not sure I understand what exactly is this suggestion.  Where should
this snippet go, and how would it solve the problem(s) at hand?

> Uhm, the notorious 'va_list in <stdio.h>' again. One possible hack from
> glibc could be
> #define __need_size_t
> #include <stddef.h>
> 
> This way stddef.h from GCC will behave as it wasn't included at all - no
> sentinels, no defs, no _STDDEF_H_INCLUDED, just single size_t definition.

Actually, I don't think I understand why stddef.h needs to be included 
instead of djtypes.h.  Could you please explain?