Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 14:32:32 +0300 (IDT) From: Eli Zaretskii X-Sender: eliz AT is To: Laurynas Biveinis cc: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port In-Reply-To: <39743532.D6605609@softhome.net> Message-ID: 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 doubt that both definitions of NULL map to something different from > 0x00000000 at binary level. We need them to resolve to the same at compile time, otherwise the compiler complains. > I want to see this thing solved, although not necesarry in politically correct > way. Me too, believe me. But if the best solution that GCC maintainers would have means more work for us and more FAQs than we can handle, perhaps the ``dirty'' solution of removing the headers GCC wants to use is the easiest way out. The insane rate of GCC development and mostly CVS-based distribution might be good enough to cover up any problems for GCC developers, but we only make releases once a year at best, and don't have enough resources to risk major flops. > It is interesting why only DJGPP and *BSD have faced this kind of > problems so far, and all other ports which play by GCC rules keep quiet. What other platforms? If you mean glibc, their development rate (and the rate they break compatibility) is even greater. When development rates are so high, and the user support is non-existent (everybody is supposed to be their own guru), no bug is important enough, since a new version will be available in a few days ;-). > Let's leave those headers for GCC this time, if they want that very much. I don't think we have an argument here, at least not with me.