From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 123746 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2015 14:48:56 -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 123675 invoked by uid 48); 1 Sep 2015 14:48:53 -0000 From: "Robert.Gomes at igt dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug preprocessor/55115] [4.9/5/6 Regression] missing headers as fatal breaks cproto logic Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 14:48:00 -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: 4.5.0 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement X-Bugzilla-Who: Robert.Gomes at igt dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.9.4 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: cc 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: 2015-09/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55115 RGomes changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Robert.Gomes at igt dot com --- Comment #16 from RGomes --- Hi, I have watched this thread for years expecting a switch to be introduced to allow the former GCC behavior of tolerating missing header files and I can no longer remain on the side lines. I echo the sentiment of others that the ability to permit missing headers is something we rely on to auto-generate said header files using cproto, and we've been doing this as far back as GCC 3.x. Of course missing headers should be an error during compilation, but pre-compile it is natural to auto-generate a variety of header files, at least in our situation. I find myself having to downgrade to GCC 4.4.7 in order to work around this issue, but I would prefer to continue to use future editions of GCC. Please see if a safety valve can be put in to allow the former behavior, it seems like this issue keeps getting bumped to future revisions but at some point we are going to be between a rock and a hard place with decisions about OS and GCC upgrades. Thank you for your anticipated consideration.