Re: gcc 3.2's cpp breaks configure scripts

["Gareth Pearce" <tilps at hotmail dot com>]

> On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Paul Eggert said:
> > If GCC warned only when there was a real problem, a lot of these issues
> > would go away.
>
> Alternatively, GCC could simply ignore the -I switches that would
> trigger those warnings in situations where those warnings are now
> emitted. Is there ever any reason you'd *want* GCC to do that
> reordering? I can't think of any occasion when I'd want to avoid
> fixincluded headers... they have after all been fixincluded for a
> reason (and if the fixincluded headers are broken the solution is
> to delete the broken ones and fix fixincludes, not to supply
> an extra -I/usr/include switch to everything!)

I agree that this is what I would like to see - however 2 points
1. Someone will complain about lack of flexibility, so there has to be a way
to disable this overide.
2.  Its possibly somewhat 'antistandard' to overide the passed parameters,
so this feature should Possibly default to off.

Gareth