This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [patch win32]: fix for PR target/41943
- From: Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz at gmail dot com>
- To: Richard Henderson <rth at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Richard Guenther <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>, Kai Tietz <ktietz70 at googlemail dot com>, Danny Smith <dansmister at gmail dot com>, Dave Korn <dave dot korn dot cygwin at googlemail dot com>, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 19:02:39 +0300
- Subject: Re: [patch win32]: fix for PR target/41943
- References: <AANLkTikpjfVTdapM1dOAFipXer2oTYbT7BEsx-ADK9a9@mail.gmail.com> <4C486B20.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 7:00 PM, Richard Henderson <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 07/22/2010 06:27 AM, Ozkan Sezer wrote:
>>>> That's right and therefore I dislike this patch and would prefer to
>>>> have that one Ozkan mentioned already. The issue is that sysroot &
>>>> cross- includes come after gcc's internal header, which is causing the
>>>> pain that it isn't absolutely predicatable, if system-headers are
>>>> reached or not.
>>>> By changing the order of gcc's internal to the end of the include
>>>> chain, it would be solved for all cases.
>>> Well, I think moving gcc headers to the end of the include chain is
>>> just wrong. ?They are supposed to override host ones (which is
>>> why they are called "fixincludes"). ?Why not fixinclude mingw?
>> The message that is referred to is this :
>> ... and its subject line is wrong/misleading: The patch contained there
>> moves the gcc-private headers and not the fixed headers.
> We're not going to do that either. ?The include order for all gcc is
> gcc-private > fixincludes > system.
That patch doesn't change the order unconditionally. Why is a
target option is unacceptable?