RE: libraries

[Julian F. Reschke <julian@GINA.UNI-MUENSTER.DE>]

> 	point well taken, and certainly we should be headed in that
> direction. Gcc Tos/miNT of course are totally re-coinciled as far as the
> headers go. i suspect that TCC compatibility should not be such a big deal,
> and would involve maybe a few more symbols in <compiler.h> ( i am assuming
> that TCC already had all the ansi C headers as we have in gcc libs, and that
> the two are almost totally compatible, and what we need to recoincile are
> various tos specific things. i have never seen the TCC headers so i  may be
> ttoally wrong). in any case, since i dont have TCC, nor do i have any
> intentions of buying it, some ones going to have to volunteer.

PureC (formerly Turbo C) is weak at POSIX stuff, but most of the ANSI C things
is ok. And yes, the main problem are TOS/GEM prototypes and structure
definitions. And, of course, I'm willing to do the PureC stuff.

> > 
> > (1) setmode
> 
> 	no problem here. in case you need a solution before we add it to
> the libs:
> 	(file)->_flag |= _IOBIN;
> 

I think that I tried that and the jpeg test failed. I'll try it again.


> >     this is what Pure does). In particular, I don't understand why
> >     the MiNT libs use _DTA instead of DTA and so on.
> 
> 	Ansi defines name spaces.

Fine. But then, let's do this for *all* OS structures. Please understand:
doing it right and portably will break all existing source anyway (if
we don't use new filenames for the headers, as I proposed).

-- 
________________ cut here _________________________
Julian F. Reschke, Hensenstr. 142, D-W4400 Muenster
  eMail: julian@math.uni-muenster.de, jr@ms.maus.de
________ correct me if I'm wrong __________________