Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 02:42:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200007200642.CAA09333@indy.delorie.com>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To: mrs AT windriver DOT com
CC: martin AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
        gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org, lauras AT softhome DOT net
In-reply-to: <200007192138.OAA01286@kankakee.wrs.com> (message from Mike Stump
	on Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:38:04 -0700 (PDT))
Subject: Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
References:  <200007192138 DOT OAA01286 AT kankakee DOT wrs DOT com>
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

> From: Mike Stump <mrs AT windriver DOT com>
> Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:38:04 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> > Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:26:25 -0400 (EDT)
> > From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
> > To: martin AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Sure, change all definitions of NULL to more closely match gcc's
> notion of null, and you're done.

I'm not sure what GCC's notion of NULL are you talking about.  We
cannot use __null in C headers unconditionally, because it will cause
unresolved externals in C programs, right?  Use of __null conditioned
on __cplusplus is questionable, since libc.a is not compiled with that
definition of NULL.  Am I missing something?

> Sprinkle in #undef NULL if you get redefinition errors.
 
We did use #undef to solve the immediate problem, but it looked like a
brute-force and potentially dangerous (for C++ programs) solution.  I
wonder if there's a better one.