[Bug pch/19541] deprecation of -I- makes precompiled headers less usable

[Bug pch/19541] deprecation of -I- makes precompiled headers less usable

[rodolfo at rodsoft dot org]

------- Comment #3 from rodolfo at rodsoft dot org  2005-10-06 20:41 -------
This also happens with 3.4.4


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541

[Bug preprocessor/19541] deprecation of -I- makes precompiled headers less usable

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-04-12 20:19 -------
Patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01197.html


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                URL|                            |http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
                   |                            |patches/2006-
                   |                            |03/msg01197.html
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |NEW
          Component|pch                         |preprocessor
     Ever Confirmed|0                           |1
           Keywords|                            |patch
   Last reconfirmed|0000-00-00 00:00:00         |2006-04-12 20:19:18
               date|                            |


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541

[Bug preprocessor/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-04-13 16:45 -------
*** Bug 27137 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |trt at acm dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541

[Bug preprocessor/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote

[levengcc at pleetveern dot com]

------- Comment #6 from levengcc at pleetveern dot com  2007-03-02 21:58 -------
(In reply to comment #4)
> Patch posted here:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01197.html
> 

This patch would meet my needs if the -I- option is removed from gcc.  Without
it
or the -I- option, I would have to find a new compiler to work with my codebase
(it makes extensive use of VPATHs similar to the nmake's viewpathing feature
and it would be impractical to edit all header file references to change them
from "" to <>).


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541

[Bug preprocessor/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #7 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-18 19:51 -------
*** Bug 34855 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |ISPARRY at BROCADE dot COM


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541

[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote

[tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #8 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-01-18 21:52 -------
Changing component; the patch here doesn't touch the preprocessor at all.


-- 

tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |tromey at gcc dot gnu dot
                   |                            |org
          Component|preprocessor                |c


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541

[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote

[ISPARRY at BROCADE dot COM]

------- Comment #9 from ISPARRY at BROCADE dot COM  2008-01-19 00:53 -------
(In reply to comment #8)
> Changing component; the patch here doesn't touch the preprocessor at all.
> 

If you are changing the component, would not a better choice be "driver" than
"c"? 

I agree the patch does not touch the preprocessor code, but from a user point
of view it is a preprocessor issue. The 4.2.2 manuals say in section 3.11 that
"The preprocessor's direct interface is undocumented and subject to change, so
whenever possible you should avoid using -Wp and let the driver handle the
options instead." A user could reasonably (but wrongly) assume that the driver
passes options like -I to the preprocessor.

If you are changing the component, then can you change the severity to
something more suitable than "enhancment" at the same time? Whilst I am all in
favour of emitting warnings about obsolete features, until there is a working
replacement for -I- it is a bug to complain that it is deprecated.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541

[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote

[dvilleneuve at kronos dot com]

------- Comment #10 from dvilleneuve at kronos dot com  2008-07-30 15:39 -------
An updated patch for gcc 4.3 is available in the following message:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00653.html


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541

[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote

[tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #11 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-07-30 17:44 -------
Please ping that patch on the gcc-patches list.
Thanks.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541

[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-08-30 23:31 -------
*** Bug 37291 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |steve dot gcc at telxio dot
                   |                            |com


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541

[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2008-08-30 23:37 -------
*** Bug 37292 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541

[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote

[Johannes dot Schwenke at gmx dot de]

------- Comment #14 from Johannes dot Schwenke at gmx dot de  2009-01-14 12:18 -------
Please, could anyone increase priority and serverity of this bug?

The current documentation that pretends that -iquote could work as replacement
is plain wrong. A proper replacement for -I- is needed. A solution has been
proposed long ago. Fixes are around.

Of course, like other people
(http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34855#c5) my favourite solution
would be if you could "undo the deprecation of -I-, as it is used by other
compilers."


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541

[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote

[chris dot litchfield at gmail dot com]

------- Comment #15 from chris dot litchfield at gmail dot com  2010-05-18 19:48 -------
This is still a huge issue.  We would wish to inhibit use of the CURRENT
Working directory to find include files.  Basically FORCE every time a new
include file is found with #include to start AGAIN from the begining of the
Include Path system.  using -iquote will simply cause the same problem where an
include file that includes another include file will include that sub-include
file even if you can pulled it away in a previous include path.

Make files with VPATH or put Development paths first in lists are totally hosed
by removing the -I- functionality.  This is NOT an enhancement but a Priority 2
bug which there is NO WORKAROUND provided by removing a feature.  


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541