mingw-clingons [Was: Re: string.h vs string.h usage]

[Danny Smith <danny_r_smith_2001 at yahoo dot co dot nz>]

 --- Christopher Faylor <cgf@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Dec 05, 2001 at
03:39:38PM +0300, egor duda wrote:
> 
> I can't believe that I've woken up to a huge thread about this trivial
> issue.
> 
> Can't we just rename strings.h to string.h in setup sources?  What's the
> big frigging deal here?
> 
> Why does every thread that touches setup.exe have to be so torturous?
> 
> cgf 

I've just thought of a new email virus,  One starts a discussion about some
trivial issue on three developer lists simultaneously (it's best to pick
lists that like to be pedantic).  Soon the whole world grinds to a stop. 

Apart from above, I have no concerns with a do-nothing strings.h. Please,
however, refrain from adding in sys/params.h, sys/resource.h, termio.h,
etc.  The ACT distro of mingw did that and it means that much code written
for the ACT version (including the code needed to build the gnat compiler)
needs surgery to get rid of unprotected #include <sys/params.h>, etc that
aren't really needed on mingw after all.

Danny  

http://shopping.yahoo.com.au - Yahoo! Shopping
- Free CDs for thousands of Priority Shoppers!