>>>> "Nix" == Nix
> - and GCC won't see the fix, or will barf in OTHER strange
> because it's got out-of-sync headers.
Nix> It will give you a perfectly clear warning regarding outdated
Nix> fixed headers as of GCC 3. (This area was lacking before
Nix> that, to be sure.)
But this is Valdis's entire complaint, AFAICT. It's certainly mine.
GCC fixes (mostly) and breaks (altogether too often) a user's system
without telling him about it. And it keeps the evidence in a private
directory that can be rather hard to find if he's not used to the
strange ways of GCC. But those are the precise systems where the
includes are fuxed.
"As of GCC 3" is basically pleading nolo contendere, IMHO.
Nix> (But this is all offtopic for xemacs-beta anyway.)
Unfortunately, it is not. The report that started this thread came to
us. In particular, ME PERSONALLY. Not to bug-gcc. And it is a FAQ.
I don't have time or access to all the platforms where GCC does this
kind of thing (I develop on Linux). If it comes down to me answering
the question, I'm not going to read GCC docs and/or sources, I'm going
to say "Not Linux or *BSD? The first thing to try is a non-GCC compiler."
I'm sure that makes GCC developers unhappy, though. Pity, that. It's
not clear to me that being in a position where I feel it appropriate
to recommend avoiding GCC on many platforms is good for XEmacs, either.
University of Tsukuba Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________ _________________ _________________ _________________
What are those straight lines for? "XEmacs rules."