Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 04:10:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007180810.EAA06916@indy.delorie.com> From: Eli Zaretskii To: martin AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de CC: mrs AT windriver DOT com, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <200007172102.XAA07817@loewis.home.cs.tu-berlin.de> (martin AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de) Subject: Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port References: <200007171736 DOT KAA29313 AT kankakee DOT wrs DOT com> <200007171834 DOT OAA06211 AT indy DOT delorie DOT com> <200007172102 DOT XAA07817 AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de> 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 > Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2000 23:02:50 +0200 > From: "Martin v. Loewis" > > GCC needs to know exactly what size_t and wchar_t is This knowledge is accessible to GCC at build time, in the system headers. > NULL is defined as __null on all platforms now Not in DJGPP. __null causes trouble in C programs. > there is no question *that* gcc must know about > these types even without seeing a single target header file. Why does it need to know that without seeing target header files? We are talking about a native build, not a cross build. The issue that started this thread is that the DJGPP maintainers don't understand the _technical_ reasons why should there be any need for GCC to insist on its own, possibly incompatible, definitions. That is what we are asking to explain. It is most probable that, once we understand the technical issues involved, a number of plausible solutions could be suggested. And yes, we did read all the threads in GCC archives that appear to be relevant, and we did discuss them at length. But we still do not understand the technical considerations that caused GCC to insist on installing its own headers. Please help us understand this.