Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 19:18:59 -0400 Message-Id: <200007202318.TAA01213@envy.delorie.com> From: DJ Delorie To: mrs AT windriver DOT com CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org In-reply-to: <200007202308.QAA06365@kankakee.wrs.com> (message from Mike Stump on Thu, 20 Jul 2000 16:08:48 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port References: <200007202308 DOT QAA06365 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 > While you may like that definition, we feel that is the wrong > definition. DJGPP is a very old system. When we made that decision, it was based on experience building huge C++ programs at Cabletron, and what the ANSI spec required. This was way before the whole __null thing. When gcc added __null, the djgpp lists got a flood of user complaints because their programs wouldn't compile any more. We want to avoid that happening again, or ever. > You can either, change it to be what we feel is right, or ignore us. Oh, cut the attitude. We came here to try to find a solution that we all could live with, so that we could reduce (or eliminate) all the problems we have with new gcc releases conflicting with old djgpp headers. We've been asking technical questions and giving technical answers to your questions. We want to do the right thing. We just don't want to harm our users when we do it, or cause a maintenance nightmare, so we're being careful. There's no need to get mad at us because we won't take your opinions as fact without questioning them.