Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2000 03:53:14 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200007210753.DAA10684@indy.delorie.com>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT delorie DOT com>
To: Mike Stump <mrs AT windriver DOT com>
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org
In-reply-to: <200007210016.RAA06898@kankakee.wrs.com> (message from Mike Stump
	on Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:16:17 -0700 (PDT))
Subject: Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
References:  <200007210016 DOT RAA06898 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: Thu, 20 Jul 2000 17:16:17 -0700 (PDT)
> 
> > Hence our desire to do the Right Thing yet avoid such disasters for
> > our users.
> 
> Actually, about the only way to avoid that, is taking a more active
> role in gcc, testing snapshots, reporting new problems that crop up,
> submitting fixes that arise.

We are doing this as best as we can.  But the DJGPP development team
is evidently too small and too hard-pressed for free time, to catch
all the problems before they sneak into released versions.  Thus our
desire to prevent potential problems before they have a chance to
happen.

We think that keeping the number (and contents) of the headers that
come with GCC to the bare minimum is a step towards that goal.

> In this case, a fixincludes chunk is the standard way to correct this
> problem (until such time as a new release of the library comes out to
> solve it).

It might be.  However, preventing the problems from happening in the
first place is even better, so we would like to pursue that, too.