There is no consensus on beos yet...

[Bruce Korb]

>   In message < m37l65c68f.fsf@dan2.cygnus.com >you write:
>   > Bruce Korb <bkorb@sco.COM> writes:
>   > 
>   > > Perhaps rather than killing fixinc, instead you could
>   > > help me resolve the bootstrap problems?  Thanks!
>   > 
>   > Huh?
>   > What bootstrap problems are you running into on beos?
>   > fixinc isn't needed on beos, and actually screws up the headers
>   > anyway (Because they don't need fixing), besides not running properly. 

> So, "screws up the headers" is untrue.  "Makes unnecessary changes".
> Fine.  Tell me how to determine that the header does not need fixing,
> aside from "Beos doesn't need fixing".  That is not reliable.
> 
> RE:  "besides not running properly" -- How so?  Please explain.
> Thank you :-).

> I would much rather see why fixinc screws up the headers than disable it.
> 
> We have consistently found that not running fixincludes results in latent
> hard to find bugs.  Why?  Because there are always subtle problems with the
> system header files.
> jeff

Rendering this premature:

> CVSROOT:        /cvs/gcc
> Module name:    egcs
> Changes by:     jason@gcc.gnu.org       2000-11-15 07:56:59
> 
> Modified files:
>         gcc            : ChangeLog 
>         gcc/fixinc     : mkfixinc.sh 
>         gcc/config/i386: x-beos 
> 
> Log message:
>         * fixinc/mkfixinc.sh (fixincludes): Add *-*-beos* to list of
>         machines for which fixincludes is not needed.
>         * config/i386/x-beos (STMP_FIXPROTO): Don't run fixproto.