X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
Date: 13 Jan 2004 19:30:18 +0200
Message-Id: <u4quzwyc5.fsf@elta.co.il>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT elta DOT co DOT il>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
In-reply-to: <Pine.OSF.4.58.0401131249170.16534@sirppi.helsinki.fi> (message
	from Esa A E Peuha on Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:14:16 +0200 (EET))
Subject: Re: Use of FILE in sprintf/sscanf
References: <Pine DOT OSF DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0401051334160 DOT 4628 AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi>  <4002FE15 DOT 8040707 AT phekda DOT gotadsl DOT co DOT uk> <Pine DOT OSF DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0401131249170 DOT 16534 AT sirppi DOT helsinki DOT fi>
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

> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 13:14:16 +0200 (EET)
> From: Esa A E Peuha <peuha AT cc DOT helsinki DOT fi>
> 
> Eli was concerned about possible problems with debugging.

I was mainly concerned with having code on header files; debugging
problems is only one of the headaches it brings.

> I asked what problems have been caused by having the current
> getc/putc code (also used in fgetc/fputc, fgets/fputs and
> getchar/putchar) as inline functions in a header.

You cannot easily put a breakpoint or step thru such functions, and
COFF debug info doesn't support included code at all.

> Since Eli didn't answer that question

Sorry, I thought the answer was obvious (it's in the FAQ, for
starters), and didn't want to start an argument over this particular
issue.

I'm still unhappy about doing that, but I don't ``object'' in the
sense that I won't vehemently argue about not doing it.