X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0.2
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
cc: mrs AT windriver DOT com, zack AT wolery DOT cumb DOT org, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
        gcc AT gcc DOT gnu DOT org, martin AT loewis DOT home DOT cs DOT tu-berlin DOT de
Subject: Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port 
In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 23 Jul 2000 07:05:59 EDT.
             <200007231105 DOT HAA13296 AT indy DOT delorie DOT com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 09:39:13 -0600
Message-ID: <12279.964366753@upchuck>
From: Jeffrey A Law <law AT cygnus DOT com>
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com


  In message <200007231105 DOT HAA13296 AT indy DOT delorie DOT com>you write:
  > > From: Mike Stump <mrs AT windriver DOT com>
  > > Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2000 17:23:25 -0700 (PDT)
  > > 
  > > > A similar argument can be made for assert.h, stddef.h, and possibly
  > > > float.h, but these headers do not cause nearly as much trouble as
  > > > limits.h.  Limits.h must die.
  > > 
  > > If we do this, we should do them all enmass, and then be willing to
  > > seek out and test on lots of platforms to make sure we don't introduce
  > > new bugs.
  > 
  > Such a change doesn't have to affect all platforms, and doesn't need
  > to happen in one go.  It could be conditioned on some sommand-line
  > option to `configure', or be the default on only some platforms, at
  > least initially.
No, that's a hack, plain and simple.  And it fails to address the issues I
pointed out in my previous messages.
jeff