Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 19:58:47 +0300
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: lauras AT softhome DOT net
Message-Id: <5567-Sat07Jul2001195847+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: Emacs 20.6 (via feedmail 8.3.emacs20_6 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <20010707153645.23586.qmail@softhome.net> (lauras@softhome.net)
Subject: Re: Comments on GCC 3.0 distribution
References:  <20010707153645 DOT 23586 DOT qmail AT softhome DOT net>
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: lauras AT softhome DOT net
> Date: Sat, 07 Jul 2001 15:36:45 GMT
> 
> those headers rely on preprocessor symbols to get actual type definitions
> and stuff. And those symbols are defined by target configuration file in
> GCC, in other words, by us. Mark has done it, and now GCC and our
> headers fully agree about type sizes etc.

Thanks.  But I'm still worried a bit: what about all those additional
definitions we have in our headers which are private to DJGPP, or at
least absent from the GCC headers?  How will they be pulled in by GCC
if it doesn't always do a include_next, and even when the header does
include_next, I'm not convinced that really works in our case?