-I/usr/include (was: fixinc...)

-I/usr/include (was: fixinc...)

[Bruce Korb]

Russ wrote:
> It's *never* been correct to add -I/usr/include.  I'm amazed
> that there are still packages making this mistake; like I said,
> I've hardly ever run into a package with this problem.

That seems a little strong.  If you ever run into a package
that uses:

   `guile-config compile`

on the command line, you will run into it.  It turns out that
package developers do not have complete control over their
command line options.  :-}  OTOH, I don't think it GCC's place
to correct Guile's problem.  But it is another data point.

Re: -I/usr/include (was: fixinc...)

[Russ Allbery]

Bruce Korb <bkorb@veritas.com> writes:
> Russ wrote:

>> It's *never* been correct to add -I/usr/include.  I'm amazed that there
>> are still packages making this mistake; like I said, I've hardly ever
>> run into a package with this problem.

> That seems a little strong.

I really don't think it is.

> If you ever run into a package that uses:

>    `guile-config compile`

> on the command line, you will run into it.

No, actually, I wouldn't.  This works fine for me, because my Guile
package is installed in a /usr/local equivalent.

Of course, if you're installing something as part of the operating system,
something that only an operating system packager needs to do, then you
have to adjust expectations in the package aimed at being installed in a
/usr/local equivalent.  That's just part of the work one has to do when
packaging software as part of a distribution rather than as an add-on
package like it was designed.

I see that Debian gets this wrong too, but that's definitely a bug in
Debian's Guile package, not in Guile.  It may be a missing feature in
Guile, but most of those packages were just never written with
installation as part of the operating system in mind.

> It turns out that package developers do not have complete control over
> their command line options.  :-}

It's easy enough to filter out /usr/include the way that gtk-config does;
that's probably the most robust solution.

Anyway, I don't think this is a gcc problem.  gcc has not allowed
-I/usr/include for as long as I've been working with gcc; the breakage is
just becoming more and more obvious with time as fixincludes has to do
more and more.

-- 
Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu)             < http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ >

Re: -I/usr/include (was: fixinc...)

[Zack Weinberg]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 11:35:06AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> 
> Anyway, I don't think this is a gcc problem.  gcc has not allowed
> -I/usr/include for as long as I've been working with gcc; the breakage is
> just becoming more and more obvious with time as fixincludes has to do
> more and more.

It would be easy to cause cpplib to ignore -I/usr/include (actually,
-I <STANDARD_INCLUDE_DIR> and maybe also -I <SYSTEM_INCLUDE_DIR> --
see cppdefault.c).

I hesitate to do that, though.  It is not in keeping with the
principle that the compiler should not second-guess the user.  There
may be an exotic but legitimate use for -I/usr/include.

zw

Re: -I/usr/include (was: fixinc...)

[Vladimir A Merzliakov]

> On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 11:35:06AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> It would be easy to cause cpplib to ignore -I/usr/include (actually,
> -I <STANDARD_INCLUDE_DIR> and maybe also -I <SYSTEM_INCLUDE_DIR> --
> see cppdefault.c).
> 
> I hesitate to do that, though.  It is not in keeping with the
> principle that the compiler should not second-guess the user.  There
> may be an exotic but legitimate use for -I/usr/include.
> 
> zw
> 
May be GCC can generate warrning at finding -I<STANDARD_INCLUDE_DIR> 
and -I<SYSTEM_INCLUDE_DIR>?

Vladimir

Re: -I/usr/include (was: fixinc...)

[Zack Weinberg]

On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 09:38:50AM +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> 
> Zack -- you approved the warning itself, but it kills -frepo.

Expand, please?  I know nothing about -frepo.

-- 
zw  I was saving quarters, but now I'm going home tomorrow, so I guess I have
    more money than I have.
    	-- Nathaniel Smith

Re: -I/usr/include (was: fixinc...)

[Nathan Sidwell]

Daniel Elstner wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > May be GCC can generate warrning at finding -I<STANDARD_INCLUDE_DIR>
> > and -I<SYSTEM_INCLUDE_DIR>?
> 
> Looks like a good idea.
> A warning on every invocation of gcc is hard to ignore ;)
I have code for such a warning, but it's not gone in yet as it pointed
out two failings in gcc's build itself, which have not yet been approved.
Now that gcc 3.0 is out of the way, I'll repost -- but not until next week.

Zack -- you approved the warning itself, but it kills -frepo.

nathan

-- 
Dr Nathan Sidwell   ::   http://www.codesourcery.com   ::   CodeSourcery LLC
         'But that's a lie.' - 'Yes it is. What's your point?'
nathan@codesourcery.com : http://www.cs.bris.ac.uk/~nathan/ : nathan@acm.org

Re: -I/usr/include (was: fixinc...)

[Daniel Elstner]

Hi,

> May be GCC can generate warrning at finding -I<STANDARD_INCLUDE_DIR>
> and -I<SYSTEM_INCLUDE_DIR>?

Looks like a good idea.
A warning on every invocation of gcc is hard to ignore ;)

Bye,
--Daniel