Re: I lose? (byteorder.h)

[Warren Young <tangent at mail dot com>]

Jeffrey A Law wrote:
> 
>   > So, before you go off wanting to replace the system header or disable
>   > it, make sure you include all the UW behavior into the GNU version of
>   > this header.  If that's not desirable, we'd better look at other
>   > options.
> Err, if you read the thread on htons you'll find this was precisely my
> concern with zapping prototypes out of header files.  Believe me, we care
> a great deal about doing the right thing.

I have read the thread, but I've seen lots of different ideas going
around and I don't see any consensus building.  Mainly my comments were
just to throw my views into the mix, and to implicitly offer my time if
anyone wants to run potential fixes by me.  In fact, that's the only
reason I'm involved with the 2.95 effort at all: I'm helping SCO (via
Robert Lipe) get the new gcc stuff working on UnixWare, because I prefer
it to the native tools.  I am by no means a compiler developer, but I
_am_ a frequent user of gcc.

The current egcs stuff has bugs when built under UnixWare, and Robert
has pointed out to me that I can't bitch about them if I don't try to
help fix them when the open beta cycle is going.  B-)
-- 
= Warren -- http://www.cyberport.com/~tangent/