From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27951 invoked by alias); 3 Apr 2014 19:39:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 27901 invoked by uid 48); 3 Apr 2014 19:39:02 -0000 From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug preprocessor/15638] gcc should have option to treat missing headers as fatal Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 19:39:00 -0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: preprocessor X-Bugzilla-Version: 3.2.1 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: redi at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: RESOLVED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: jsm28 at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.5.0 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00256.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15638 --- Comment #21 from Jonathan Wakely --- See comment 3. Every new option to GCC requires extra testing and extra maintenance. IMHO it's not a good idea to add an option to support one use case in a single codebase, which doesn't even use GCC the way it's supposed to be used. If you need a preprocessor that works in a specific way then use a specific version of GCC that works that way. It is not worth changing all future versions to work that way.