Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:26:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007191826.OAA08693@indy.delorie.com> From: Eli Zaretskii To: martin AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de CC: lauras AT softhome DOT net, mrs AT windriver DOT com, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com In-reply-to: <200007181913.VAA01170@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: <200007180918 DOT FAA06988 AT indy DOT delorie DOT com> <200007181913 DOT VAA01170 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: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 21:13:22 +0200 > From: "Martin v. Loewis" > > > Anyway, one reason that __null might cause trouble is that it breaks > > previous versions of the library which were compiled with different > > definition of NULL. I think we've been discussing that on the DJGPP > > developers list to death. > > And did these discussions come to a conclusion, or did everybody die > before that? You are talking to a few survivors ;-). Seriously, though: the conclusion was that we didn't like the redefinition of NULL in C++ headers (see my other message for the problems this causes). But we couldn't understand why does the C++ compiler redefines NULL in its headers, so we couldn't find a solution that would satisfy us all and avoid breaking the C++ compiler at the same time. Perhaps you could help.