On Mon, Nov 20, 2000 at 11:01:30PM -0500, DJ Delorie wrote: > > IMO there's no pressing reason to do _any_ of it in libiberty, > > The original patches included an implementation of valloc() in > libiberty, for systems that didn't have one, so that ggc could rely on > a working valloc. The point being? There's _still_ no reason it _must_ be done in libiberty. r~ -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap fo... DJ Delorie
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap fo... Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstr... Christopher Faylor
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-boo... Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non... Christopher Faylor
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97... Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstr... Richard Henderson
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-boo... Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non... Richard Henderson
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97... DJ Delorie
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC... Richard Henderson
- Re: Reason for cygwin... DJ Delorie
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap fo... Kelley Cook
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstr... Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-boo... Phil Edwards
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non... Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97... Chris Abbey
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC... Zack Weinberg
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97... Phil Edwards
- Re: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-boo... DJ Delorie
- RE: Reason for cygwin GCC 2.97 non-bootstrap fo... Billinghurst, David (CRTS)
