This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
In article <393D3934.8AB76C44@softhome.net> you write: >Hello, > >could somebody explain what are the technical reasons for >not allowing ports to choose if they want to use standard >headers provided by GCC? Many times I've seen on this >mailing list that 'overriding USER_H is a brain-damaged >feature' without explanation *how* it is brain-damaged. > >Thanks in advance, >Laurynas Biveinis > It's standard policy from the gcc development team. Using USER_H means not using gcc headers, and overriding them with the system headers. Since the FSF goal is to promote gcc as a standard portable compiler, USER_H goes against this goal. Also, they would rather support fixincludes, and not be bothered with system inadequacies that USER_H is likely to stumble onto. Of course, other groups (the OpenBSD project for instance) which use gcc as a system compiler have rather conflicting goals. We would rather *not* use fixinc, as it tends to produce a mess of modified headers with #include_next and what not which is not... too clean, compared to what we would like our system headers to hold. I would say that it's unlikely either camp is going to budge, since both are utterly convinced they're doing the right thing. As a token offer, I'm trying to ensure the FSF way does work correctly on OpenBSD, though recent snapshots got me stumped on a varargs problems which I haven't yet figured out...
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |