Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 09:23:43 +0300 (WET)
From: Andris Pavenis <pavenis AT lanet DOT lv>
To: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc: lauras AT softhome DOT net, djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: Comments on GCC 3.0 distribution
In-Reply-To: <1438-Tue10Jul2001222330+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.05.10107110920410.60042-100000@ieva06.lanet.lv>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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



On Tue, 10 Jul 2001, Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> > From: "Laurynas Biveinis" <lauras AT softhome DOT net>
> > Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 18:12:53 +0200
> > 
> > Does our limits.h have non-standard symbols, so that's the problem?
> 
> Yes, we have lots of Posix _POSIX_* constants, and quite a few others.
> I'm afraid that without out limits.h being included by the one which
> comes with GCC, some programs which need those constants might not
> compile.

I previously have run into trouble when DJGPP limits.h were not included.
So I have verified this time it's OK (gcc option -M can be used for
that). 

Andris