Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Originating-IP: [203.26.31.119] From: "Gareth Pearce" To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: suggestion for cygwin gcc-3.2 Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2002 05:49:15 +0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Aug 2002 05:49:16.0253 (UTC) FILETIME=[D279F0D0:01C245B1] >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/