This is a message I meant send to "all", I'm sending again for the wider

Please let me know if my understanding of include order is incorrect.
Essentially I'm more concerned about relative placement of `AM_CPPFLAGS'
and `CPPFLAGS' in any future changes.

Moving CPPFLAGS to the end of the line prevents users from overriding
include paths.

I believe it's current placement is intended to provide an avenue for
overrides in the same way that CFLAGS being at the end allows users to
override the C standards and spec flags.

Really what I care about is the relative order of `CPPFLAGS AM_CPPFLAGS',
and `AM_CFLAGS CFLAGS' - whether these groups are ordered before or after
the other group is less important though. For example I'm content with

On Sun, Mar 27, 2022, 5:00 PM Jan Engelhardt <> wrote:

> On Sunday 2022-03-27 23:22, Karl Berry wrote:
> >It seems the basic inconsistency is whether CPPFLAGS is considered a
> >"user variable" or not. In earlier eras, it wasn't [...]
> In earlier eras of what exactly?
> As for make, it never made a distinction between user variables or
> otherwise,
> at least that's the way make comes across. Some software will just
> break on `make CFLAGS=-O3` and others will work to compile.
> As for automake, AM_CPPFLAGS was introduced at the same time as AM_CFLAGS
> as
> per the git log. So CPPFLAGS always was a user variable.
> >[more on CFLAGS<->CPPFLAGS order]
> I went to the GNU make git repo to check on CPPFLAGS; it appeared first in
> documentation rather than source (which seems like a history import
> mishap),
> but even back then in '94, the documentation was inconsistent, sometimes
> providing example descriptions where CPPFLAGS comes after
> and sometimes reversed.

Reply via email to