Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 6 Jul 2012 09:10:34 -0600
From:      Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com>
To:        Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
Cc:        toolchain@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: gcc46 header search path
Message-ID:  <508B8B4E-DF5E-412B-BD2B-86F21EBF4C8C@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FF6DB51.40904@FreeBSD.org>
References:  <4FF60A9E.5070503@FreeBSD.org> <4FF6DB51.40904@FreeBSD.org>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Top posting, because I'm lame...

I think it shouldn't be there.  It is non-standard behavior both in the =
gcc world and in the freebsd world.  It does save a little on makefiles =
on some ports, but most ports already grok things are in /usr/local or =
opt/local and cope.

Warner

On Jul 6, 2012, at 6:34 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:

>=20
> Inviting wider audience to the discussion.
>=20
> -------- Original Message --------
> Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:43:58 +0300
> From: Andriy Gapon <avg@FreeBSD.org>
> Subject: Re: gcc46 header search path
>=20
> on 05/07/2012 17:15 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>>=20
>> Gerald,
>>=20
>> while thinking what to reply in our other conversation I ran into =
another issue
>> with gcc46:
>>=20
>> $ echo "" | cpp46 -v
>> [trim]
>> #include "..." search starts here:
>> #include <...> search starts here:
>> /usr/local/lib/gcc46/gcc/x86_64-portbld-freebsd10.0/4.6.3/include
>> /usr/local/include
>> =
/usr/local/lib/gcc46/gcc/x86_64-portbld-freebsd10.0/4.6.3/include-fixed
>> /usr/include
>> End of search list.
>> [trim]
>>=20
>> I don't think that /usr/local/include should automagically appear in =
the search
>> list.  Base gcc doesn't have it and there doesn't seem to be a good =
reason to
>> include "arbitrary" non-system directory into the default search =
path.
>>=20
>=20
> On the other hand the above seems to match the default upstream =
behavior as
> described here: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/cpp/Search-Path.html
> It's understandable that such a difference between the base gcc =
compiler and gcc
> compilers from ports introduces subtle issues to ports.
>=20
> I am now confused and torn as to which behavior should be preferable.
> On one hand it's easier to patch the port gcc-s to match the base one.
> On the other hand the default gcc behavior would save many lines in =
port
> makefiles that explicitly add -I ${LOCALBASE}/include or some such to =
CFLAGS.
> buildworld and buildkernel (and etc) could be spared from any =
interference from
> /usr/local by using -nostdinc and explicitly setting all necessary =
include paths.
>=20
> Adding more people to conversation in hope that it could become =
fruitful.
>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Andriy Gapon
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> freebsd-toolchain@freebsd.org mailing list
> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to =
"freebsd-toolchain-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?508B8B4E-DF5E-412B-BD2B-86F21EBF4C8C>