Message-ID: <20010209101902.24758.qmail@lauras.lt>
From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:19:02 +0200
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Cc: Stephen Silver <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
Subject: Re: stddef.h - namespace std patch
Mail-Followup-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com,
	Stephen Silver <djgpp AT argentum DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
References: <002801c091fe$f81f5ea0$a2d9883e AT oemcomputer> <2561-Fri09Feb2001102945+0200-eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i
In-Reply-To: <2561-Fri09Feb2001102945+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>; from eliz@is.elta.co.il on Fri, Feb 09, 2001 at 10:29:45AM +0200
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


> > But I don't see how the problem can be solved satisfactorily from
> > the GCC side, whereas I have *already* solved it (at least to my
> > satisfaction) from the DJGPP side.
> 
> I agree.  

I didn't say I don't agree :) All I want is compatibility between V3 and
us.

> (Do we even know for sure that libstdc++ v3 doesn't have
> problems with DJGPP?)

Well, it better didn't have any... I'm working on it.

Laurynas