Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 07:08:42 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200007231108.HAA13300@indy.delorie.com> From: Eli Zaretskii To: mrs AT windriver DOT com CC: law AT cygnus DOT com, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org In-reply-to: <200007230030.RAA01643@kankakee.wrs.com> (message from Mike Stump on Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:30:18 -0700 (PDT)) Subject: Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port References: <200007230030 DOT RAA01643 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 > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:30:18 -0700 (PDT) > > > We already discussed that possibility at length on the DJGPP > > developer's list, and arrived at a conclusion that it is much easier > > for us to use our headers. > > And is it also much easier for you to test all systems that gcc has > ever been build for and verify your new patches are right? I don't know how to reply to that. Any change can potentially break something somewhere, and requires testing on all supported platforms. At the end of the day, I trust you, the GCC maintainers, to draw the line: to find a reasonable way to make the changes in such a manner that will minimize the risks for other platforms while still not causing stagnation. This includes any guidance and requirements you might have for us to submit patches in a way that suits your judgement of the risks on the one hand and the benefits on the other. However, if the general trend of minimizing the dependencies between GCC and the system headers, at least in the case of DJGPP, is not something you are willing to accept, these considerations become a moot point.