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

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

[fergusoc at us dot ibm.com]

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

Chris Ferguson <fergusoc at us dot ibm.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |fergusoc at us dot ibm.com

--- Comment #16 from Chris Ferguson <fergusoc at us dot ibm.com> 2010-12-06 20:06:51 UTC ---
So is this item a) still unresolved b) resolved but not verified/released c)
never to be resolved ?

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

[chris.litchfield at gmail dot com]

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

--- Comment #17 from Chris Litchfield <chris.litchfield at gmail dot com> 2010-12-06 20:13:30 UTC ---
All versions since 4.0.0 seem to still have this issue.  We are still awaiting
it, and its not assigned to anyone either.

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

[fergusoc at us dot ibm.com]

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

--- Comment #18 from Chris Ferguson <fergusoc at us dot ibm.com> 2010-12-08 15:59:03 UTC ---
So there is no hope for this option then ? Anybody have a work around... We
are considering drastic measures to work around this.

Thanks,
Chris



  From:       "chris.litchfield at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>    

  To:         Christopher Ferguson/Burlington/IBM@IBMUS                         

  Date:       12/06/2010 03:14 PM                                               

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






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

--- Comment #17 from Chris Litchfield <chris.litchfield at gmail dot com>
2010-12-06 20:13:30 UTC ---
All versions since 4.0.0 seem to still have this issue.  We are still
awaiting
it, and its not assigned to anyone either.

--
Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.

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

[chris.litchfield at gmail dot com]

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

--- Comment #19 from Chris Litchfield <chris.litchfield at gmail dot com> 2010-12-08 16:10:47 UTC ---
For now, we keep the -iquote in and hope the other parts are not removed. In
our shop we have many different functions to try and mitigate the problem. 
Include files have #defines at the top to prevent the includes from being
double included, use the proper syntax of #include <> and #include "" when
appropriate. Hard coding the include path is just horrible for coding and
deemed unacceptable for us. 

One of the workarounds is drastic but involves configuration management to the
extreme.  All source files and include files in the same directory and to
verify that NO include files are ever duplicated.  This can be done and use
virtual designs for your "projects" in IDEs. 

Redesign of the Include files so they do not pull in other include files or
have a layer of include files that include other files but when you change the
sub-include files, it automatically pulls in the above layer include file.

Yes, all these are ugly for something that should be part of ANY include
system. There is a reason an Include Path exists, and to use "shortcuts" as
standard practice inside the compiler hurts everyone here complaining about it.
 Quite a few developers just continue to use older compiler versions as no need
to upgrade into some of the pain.

Wish we could assign this to someone. I bet we could keep the needed option as
a separate option (-I-). Dont know what this was last reconfirmed 2006
though...

Chris

(In reply to comment #18)
> So there is no hope for this option then ? Anybody have a work around... We
> are considering drastic measures to work around this.
> 
> Thanks,
> Chris
> 
> 
> 
>   From:       "chris.litchfield at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>    
> 
>   To:         Christopher Ferguson/Burlington/IBM@IBMUS                         
> 
>   Date:       12/06/2010 03:14 PM                                               
> 
>   Subject:    [Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just
> besides -iquote                                                     
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
> 
> --- Comment #17 from Chris Litchfield <chris.litchfield at gmail dot com>
> 2010-12-06 20:13:30 UTC ---
> All versions since 4.0.0 seem to still have this issue.  We are still
> awaiting
> it, and its not assigned to anyone either.
> 
> --
> Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
> ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
> You are on the CC list for the bug.

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

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

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

Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |richard_sharman at mitel
                   |                            |dot com

--- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-02-14 22:54:02 UTC ---
*** Bug 47741 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

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

[jdrosa at yahoo dot com]

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

David Rosa <jdrosa at yahoo dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jdrosa at yahoo dot com

--- Comment #21 from David Rosa <jdrosa at yahoo dot com> 2011-06-28 14:14:37 UTC ---
I want to add my voice to others who have asked that the priority of this bug
be elevated to P2.

Eliminating the secondary function of -I- as quoted from the GNU preprocessor
documentation is unacceptable.

"Second, the directory containing the current file is not searched for
anything, unless it happens to be one of the directories named by an -I
switch."

Even if a different switch is used, like the -ignore-source-dir I've heard some
rumblings about, can this issue please be elevated in priority and addressed
soon?

For our code base, we utilize gcc along with commercial cross-compilers. All of
the cross-compilers we use support an option that implements the original -I-
behavior and in order to maintain our existing code base, we either -I- to no
longer be deprecated or replaced with a different option that implements the
same behavior.

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

[achurch+gcc at achurch dot org]

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

--- Comment #22 from Andrew Church <achurch+gcc at achurch dot org> 2012-02-02 13:38:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 26553
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26553
Remove deprecation warning for -I- (gcc-4.6.2)

Patch against gcc-4.6.2 to remove the deprecation warning for -I- since there's
no complete replacement for it yet.  This will probably ruffle some feathers;
sorry about that.

FWIW, it's my intention to keep this patch updated (at
http://achurch.org/patch-pile/#gcc) until either it's officially undeprecated
or a replacement for the "ignore source directory" functionality of -I- is
available.

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

[rodolfo at rodsoft dot org]

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

--- Comment #23 from Rodolfo Schulz de Lima <rodolfo at rodsoft dot org> ---
How difficult is it to add a parameter to add paths to precompiled header
search list *only*? 

We have a big code base with #include "pch.h" in some source files. 
If source file directory is always searched first for headers, this breaks
out-of-source builds, unless the precompiled header is generated in the source
tree. For read-only source trees, this "solution" is unacceptable.

The ideal solution would be a parameter like -ipch <path> that adds <path> to
be searched for precompiled headers *before* the current source directory.

I could spend some time creating a patch, but seeing that others have come with
patches that weren't applied, this kind of demotivate me.

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

[melebius at gmail dot com]

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

Miroslav Matějů <melebius at gmail dot com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |melebius at gmail dot com,
                   |                            |pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #24 from Miroslav Matějů <melebius at gmail dot com> ---
I can confirm the bug is still present in GCC 4.8.2 and 4.9.1. It affects my
workflow in the following way: I need to include stub header files instead of
the original ones (which can reside in the same directory as the compiled
source file) for the purpose of unit-testing. So I need GCC to consider some
include directories before the current directory (which I provide as an include
directory later anyway). The -I- option can do the job, -iquote absolutely not.

I found other affected users when searching for the solution on StackOverflow:
*
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12353429/prevent-gcc-from-searching-the-current-dir-i-option-on-include-search-path
*
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3162510/how-to-make-gcc-search-for-headers-in-a-directory-before-the-current-source-file

Please fix this issue by either undeprecating the -I- option or introducing the
-ignore-source-dir option as proposed in
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-03/msg01197.html.
>From gcc-bugs-return-492436-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org Thu Jul 16 09:16:19 2015
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-492436-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Delivered-To: listarch-gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 21931 invoked by alias); 16 Jul 2015 09:13:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Delivered-To: mailing list gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 12930 invoked by uid 48); 16 Jul 2015 09:11:30 -0000
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/66860] [5/6 Regression] FAIL: gfortran.dg/graphite/pr42393.f90 -O (internal compiler error)
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2015 09:25:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Version: 6.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution:
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 5.3
X-Bugzilla-Flags:
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: target_milestone
Message-ID: <bug-66860-4-Z0og7Gqego@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-66860-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-66860-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
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: 2015-07/txt/msg01414.txt.bz2
Content-length: 423

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?idf860

Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Target Milestone|5.2                         |5.3

--- Comment #3 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 5.2 is being released, adjusting target milestone to 5.3.

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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