From: Mike Stump Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 13:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <200007232055.NAA01910@kankakee.wrs.com> To: eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il, law AT cygnus DOT com Subject: Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port Cc: 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, zack AT wolery DOT cumb DOT org Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com > Date: Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:20:26 -0400 (EDT) > From: Eli Zaretskii > To: law AT cygnus DOT com > I believe I addressed the issues you raised in other messages. The > above referred to a suggestion originally made by Mike (to remove > stddef.h and possibly other headers based on Autoconf test). It is a modification to the scheme I suggested. I can support the scheme I suggested, and I would argue here for it, if it helps you. I am happy to do this. I wasn't going to say anything about the change to the scheme you suggest, as I think my previous point was clear as to where I stood on that issue. I, personally, would not argue for such a modification. I'd argue against it. Now, that doesn't mean that it can't go in, bear in mind, I am but one member of the list, just one reader. In the end, the maintainers (I am not presently one) make the decisions, based in part on all the concerns and ideas other might present and of course their experience, knowledge and skill. The problem is that mirrored configury bits that are just like other bits, but different is one of the most glaring `bad design' issues in the compiler that I know. I support the unification and removal of the duplicate bits. By configuring the headers some ways on some machines and some ways on other machines, I feel we contribute to this `bad design'. For this reason, I am against your modification to my scheme. I'd rather simplify it, and risk the bugs, and fix any that might arise, than do as you suggest. Take a look at config/*/* and you'll start to see what I mean.