From: Martin Stromberg <eplmst AT epl DOT ericsson DOT se>
Message-Id: <200211251025.LAA08934@lws256.lu.erisoft.se>
Subject: Re: 2.04 CVS Build plan
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:25:05 +0100 (MET)
In-Reply-To: <000d01c2946c$73885ad0$0100a8c0@p4> from "Andrew Cottrell" at Nov 25, 2002 09:21:12 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL3]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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

> > > The other thing I didn't mention above is C99 compliance.  It will be a
> > > real shame if we release in 2003 and don't support C99.  Would someone
> > > *PLEASE* look at what's needed to get there and create a worklist?
> >
> > Well isn't that a lot of functions that still needs to be written? And
> > no coders?
> I have not looked at the GLIBC licenses in much detail, so I do not know if
> porting code from GLIBC to the DJGPP LIBC will cause any problems.
> 
> The Linux GLIBC code has the C99 functions and they are easy to port then
> does anyone know of any problems with this? It may speed up getting more C99
> functions in the DJGPP LIBC.

I suspect that that isn't allowed as you can distribute binary-only
programs built with DJGPP's libc.

DJ?


Right,

						MartinS