From: "Tim Van Holder" To: Subject: RE: About release of gcc-2.95.3 for DJGPP Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2001 19:01:36 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <3AB730FE.3941.34C8F0@localhost> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Importance: Normal 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 > Tested: I'm getting foo.da, foo.bb and foo.bbg. So also here the > conflicts are possible (foo.c and foo.h ==> foo.da, foo.bb, ...) Actually, no. I looked into the .bb files on Linux, and they apparently contain info for both foo.c and foo.h. The test-coverage files are based on preprocessed sources, so the relevant headers would already be present (though their code would likely be duplicated in the .bb file for each source that includes them). There's only a conflict if someone does 'gcc -x c++ -c foo.h', I thinks.