Mail Archives: cygwin/2002/08/17/01:49:26
>This may generate some flames, so flame away if you want to.
I was expecing some too - but, no replys at all - huh i better fix that.
>
>I don't know about anyone else, but there is one particular "feature"
>of the new gcc that is driving me crazy. I refer to:
>
>"warning: changing search order for system directory..."
Since you seem to have followed the gcc mailing list you will possibly know
I dont like this much either.
However...
>
>which appears if you redefine the system include directory. Many
>times this isn't intentional as you may have an autotool macro which
>inadvertently does this for you. Sometimes you may want to use an
>explicit include search path because you are cross-compiling. Other
I'l take your word on this - only things i have heard about cross-compiling
is that overiding the system include directory is Bad, to me it would sound
like the cross-compiler isnt set up properly if your wanting to over-ride
the system include header.
>times, because you want a certain header to trump the system default
I am thinking this would have to be pretty rare. But anyway.
>header. To the autotools, such a warning will cause a c preprocessor
>test to fail. This is highly aggravating, as it adds yet another
>unknown to the equation when you are porting packages. Also, it
>makes tracking potential issues harder because it clutters the screen
>with useless garbage. I mean, dangnabit, if I wanted a pedantic
>level of warnings, I would say so with -pedantic. This warning has
>no business being in the default warning level, for the
>aforementioned reasons. I know that passing "-w" will disable it,
>but that also disables the warnings which are actually useful.
>Therefore, I suggest that this warning be disabled by default and
>enabled only on a stricter warning level. I ask here because I know
>it is useless to ask on the gcc list - seeing as how they're going to
>do it their way and the rest of us be damned. If you need a patch, I
>will provide one.
It indeed looks pretty pointless on gcc ...
However If cygwin is going to change this, I would of hoped that we would of
gone for one of the other approaches suggested. Specifically I thought that
a system with:
1. If -I is specified for system directory ignore the -I completely.
2. If -fallow-header-override - ignore rule 1 and dont warn.
3. If -Wheader-override - warn - in both case 1 and case 2.
This is a little bit more complex, but seems 'the right thing to do' after
having read all the gcc arguments back and forth.
Gareth
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -