From: "Mark E." <snowball3 AT bigfoot DOT com>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 12:52:02 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: GCC headers
Message-ID: <3976F5F2.2157.5A41E@localhost>
References: <3976ECCE DOT 11486 DOT EB6CD AT localhost>
In-reply-to: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1000720192722.28548A-100000@is>
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com

> > #define _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H		/* tell gcc's limits.h to recurse */
> >  #include_next <limits.h>
> > #undef _GCC_NEXT_LIMITS_H
> 
> So, if fixincludes worked in the DJGPP build, we would be using our 
> limits.h, is that right?
Currently, DJGPP's limits.h is included in the snippet above. I don't know 
fixincludes would affect this.

This can be shown by using gcc -E on gcc's limits.h (consensed for ease of 
reading):

# 1 "limits.h"
# 1 "syslimits.h" 1
# 1 "c:/djgpp/include/limits.h" 1 3
# 7 "syslimits.h" 2
# 11 "limits.h" 2
# 108 "limits.h"