gcc 3.2's cpp breaks configure scripts

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Sat, Aug 03, 2002 at 04:07:07PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> I do not see how this follows.  The problems caused by
> -I <dir on system path> are not merely because of failure to pick up
> fixincluded headers.  For instance, Dan Jacobowitz points out that
> -I/usr/include can cause havoc when used with a cross compiler; it
> seems to me that -I/usr/local/include could cause just as much havoc.
> (He wanted these to warn in a cross configuration, which I must
> confess I don't see any way to do - how do we know that
> -I/gltz/quux/include happens to contain headers for the wrong target?

Somewhat tangential to the current discussion, but I was referring
specifically to /usr/include and /usr/local/include, not to any sort of
${prefix}/include (which I always disable in our toolchains anyway; for
historical reasons our ${prefix}/include is where things like the cross
BFD's headers go, not where target headers go.  But that's just a quirk
of our environment.

> My inclination, for the record, is to do nothing until all parties
> come to an agreement on what GCC's behavior _should_ be.  At present,
> I suspect that any patch will be immediately followed by another horde
> of objectors demanding it be put back the way it was.

Absolutely agreed.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer