On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 12:55 +0100, Fabian Groffen wrote:
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for figuring this out! In general, I think double slashes are
> ugly, so getting rid of them is always a Good Thing(tm). The first two
> patches do this, and hence serve a double purpose to me: fixing and
> beautification.
And on Cygwin (which may/will become one target), double slashes at the
beginning are not just ugly, but have a different meaning.
>
> The last patch I think is right too. I'm waiting for my compiler to be
> built now. Question is whether it shouldn't use ${EPREFIX}${PREFIX}
> instead of ${EPREFIX}/usr. Did you do this intentionally?
Did not consider $PREFIX versus /usr yet, but "${EPREFIX}/usr" is
correct for --with-local-prefix, because if $PREFIX changes to somewhat
like /usr/gcc, gcc won't search $EPREFIX/usr/include any more, but only
$EPREFIX/usr/gcc/include.
> Last question, which relates to the subject of this mail; does the last
> patch in priniciple fix the compiler search path to have the prefix
> includes first, like now is attempted to be achieved with the CPPFLAGS?
> I.o.w. is CPPFLAGS (as we use) unnecessary for compilers built with a
> correct --with-local-prefix ?
If one adds "-I" with gcc's configured "--prefix"/include, gcc detects
this and throws it away with this message:
ignoring duplicate directory "<EPREFIX>/usr/include"
as it is a non-system directory that duplicates a system directory
So the CPPFLAGS setting was useless even without any of these patches,
this is why I said "non-working workaround".
/haubi/
--
Michael Haubenwallner SALOMON Automation GmbH
Forschung & Entwicklung A-8114 Friesach bei Graz
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.salomon.at
No HTML/MIME please, see http://expita.com/nomime.html
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
