This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: New cpp0 warning in 3.1 breaks configure (autoconf)
On Wed, Jun 12, 2002 at 02:05:07PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote:
> >Same difference to me. -I/usr/local/include is wrong too, since
> >/usr/local/include is a system header directory. -Iing it may not be
> >as evil as /usr/include, but it's still a bad idea IMO.
>
> No, it's not. Not everywhere. See ? you are making assumptions that are
> false.
>
> On some BSD systems, /usr/local is the place for *local* stuff, and the
> system compiler (a version of gcc) does not look in /usr/local.
> Hence, the porting framework does add -I/usr/local/include to configure
> invocations for this compiler.
Erm, doesn't GCC actually consider ${prefix}/include to be a system
include directory? I.e. it's not "/usr/local/include", it just happens
that /usr/local is the default for ${prefix}.
This is why I always use a prefix which I dedicate entirely to mainline GNU
toolchain bits I'm working on, e.g. --prefix=/usr/local/gnu.
--
-- Jason R. Thorpe <thorpej@wasabisystems.com>
...at USENIX...