--WIyZ46R2i8wDzkSu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Apr 26, 2005 at 01:53:29AM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
>=20
> Bill Studenmund <wrstuden@netbsd.org> writes:
> >
> > Not really. We used to, but there are too many places in the code that=
=20
> > require gcc extensions.
>=20
> That's certainly true of things like the kernel (where we absolutely
> need __asm etc.) but is that true of our headers? (Of course, the
> __rename hack is kind of critical...)

I think that your () indicates we do really need gcc, or at least some of=
=20
the common extensions.

However it would be interesting to see how we do when the header defines=20
for ANSI C are turned on. I suspect we will do much better in that case;=20
the headers assume gcc, but will work in other environments. We will=20
probably still need __rename() though...

Take care,

Bill

--WIyZ46R2i8wDzkSu
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (NetBSD)

iD8DBQFCbeWjWz+3JHUci9cRAuLpAJ96SyhfTUoYoy6GZLEi5XqGvVjvZgCdGuiS
QCiDEqqojMzM61+SphOurMQ=
=Dl9A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--WIyZ46R2i8wDzkSu--