Re: gcc 3.2's cpp breaks configure scripts

["Gareth Pearce" <tilps@hotmail.com>]

> >
> > Hmm, I see, changed order (expected) - and gcc's syslimits not being 
>called,
> > but that seems okay since limits is already called... (ie it looks like 
>the
> > copy of linux I am looking at at least has been designed to handle this
> > situation) *shrug*
> > I see the possibility of breakage... not from the #include_next though. 
>(ie,
> > less potential breakage then if the #include_next wasnt there)
>
>limits.h with -I/usr/include was actually broken already twice
>in the history if I remember well and in both times changed after a while
>so that it works, though it is quite ugly. This is not the case with
>/usr/include/c++/<version> though and the more headers use #include_next
>this means more (potential) problems.

but only with files which are fixincluded right? (not rhetorical)
So possibly the mandatoryness of the warning could persist for just 
fixincluded headers not being chosen due to -I<dir> and be optional 
otherwise?  Or is it a case of make the transition to better pastures a 
rough road so that people travel faster - being considered more important.

Gareth


_________________________________________________________________
MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 
http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx