This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
- To: mrs at windriver dot com
- Subject: Re: GCC headers and DJGPP port
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at delorie dot com>
- Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 14:26:49 -0400 (EDT)
- CC: martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de, djgpp-workers at delorie dot com, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <200007190346.UAA01039@kankakee.wrs.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at is dot elta dot co dot il>
> From: Mike Stump <mrs@windriver.com>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:46:05 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Well, I reviewed stddef.h, as it is one of the culprits. After
> reading it, I came to the conclusion that we can probably eject it
> from the compiler safely.
That is wonderful news! Thanks.
> We can even autoconf the target headers, and provide it, if the target
> doesn't (to be backward compatible with systems that didn't have it
> because of gcc), and to not provide it, if the target system has one.
Yes, I think this should be the best solution, that would avoid
breaking systems which need the version of the headers that GCC
supplies.
> The other headers, like varargs.h, might as well be in the compiler.
> The compiler has to be able to generate code, assuming it does this,
> it _must_ know about the varargs mechanism. Because it already must
> know about it, it doesn't require any more information to have gcc
> provide stdarg.h and varargs.h, because the compiler generates them,
> they are consistent with the compiler, and cannot be wrong (experts
> need not correct me, I know this is a lie).
I think I understand why stdarg.h and varargs.h need to come with the
compiler. Are there any other headers that are in that category? I
think not, but maybe I'm missing something.
If only the va_* macros need to be defined by the compiler
distribution, I think it should be very easy to modify DJGPP system
headers to use them instead of our versions (or in addition to them,
if the need arises).
> Bottom line, If you want to do up patches to autoconf for stddef.h,
> assert.h and iso646.h and not install them if the system already has
> them, I'd invite you to, I don't think anyone will argue to keep them.
Yes, I think this is what we would like to do.
> Before we do this, I'd like a person like drepper to buy into it as
> well, though I don't think he'll mind.
Ulrich, could you please comment on this?
> varargs.h, I think we should reject
Agreed.
> and other headers I think we'd need to talk about specifically and
> weigh the issues.
Could you tell what other headers do we need to consider?