X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mailnull set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002 07:58:55 +0200
From: "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Sender: halo1 AT zahav DOT net DOT il
To: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu
Message-Id: <7377-Thu07Feb2002075855+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il>
X-Mailer: emacs 21.2.50 (via feedmail 8 I) and Blat ver 1.8.9
CC: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com, ST001906 AT HRZ1 DOT HRZ DOT TU-Darmstadt DOT De
In-reply-to: <10202062058.AA24120@clio.rice.edu> (sandmann@clio.rice.edu)
Subject: Re: conflicting types for bzero (gcc303)
References:  <10202062058 DOT AA24120 AT clio DOT rice DOT edu>
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: sandmann AT clio DOT rice DOT edu (Charles Sandmann)
> Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:58:16 -0600 (CST)
> 
> There is a small possibility that 
> someone is using the return argument today - and I don't think
> breaking it in a "refresh" is the right thing.

If there is such a program, it is already broken by GCC 3.x, since
the inline code emitted by GCC for bzero and bcopy behaves like GCC's
own internal prototype says: it doesn't return anything.

> In addition, I don't believe anyone has the time and energy right 
> now to try to rebuild libc/binaries/re-test changes to a v2.03 refresh 
> - I was hoping for a quick and easy distribution fix (which might
> go in with the djtypes.h fix).

I don't think we need to test that at all, at least not for GCC 3.x,
because they already use the code which doesn't return anything,
unless they say -fno-builtin.

I think we will have to answer lots of FAQs if we don't take the
opportunity of this refresh to fix that.