on 06/07/2012 19:21 Warner Losh said the following: > I didn't, because I know the standard behavior. Turns out, I don't know > today's standard behavior, just the historical behavior of gcc, which has > changed over the life of FreeBSD. > > FreeBSD's standard compiler has never included it. There was talk about 10 > years ago about adding it, but it was shouted down as a stupid idea. I tend > to > agree, but I can't articulate good reasons.
Yeah. Honestly speaking I myself was not aware of what is written in that link and I thought that our gcc ports (from ports) added /usr/local/include to the default search path by some mistake. And if somebody asked me what I thought about the idea of adding /usr/local/include to the default path, I'd say that it was a stupid idea. But then I discovered that information. And verified that even Linux distributions that have zero files under /usr/local still keep the upstream behavior. So now I am thinking in opposite direction: do we have a strong enough reason to deviate from the default upstream behavior in this case. My main motivation is to keep behavior of base gcc and gcc-s from ports as close as possible (but no closer) to avoid such hidden gems when using the compilers interchangeably to build our ports tree. -- Andriy Gapon _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-toolchain To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
