[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541 --- Comment #23 from Rodolfo Schulz de Lima rodolfo at rodsoft dot org --- How difficult is it to add a parameter to add paths to precompiled header search list *only*? We have a big code base with #include pch.h in some source files. If source file directory is always searched first for headers, this breaks out-of-source builds, unless the precompiled header is generated in the source tree. For read-only source trees, this solution is unacceptable. The ideal solution would be a parameter like -ipch path that adds path to be searched for precompiled headers *before* the current source directory. I could spend some time creating a patch, but seeing that others have come with patches that weren't applied, this kind of demotivate me.
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541 --- Comment #22 from Andrew Church achurch+gcc at achurch dot org 2012-02-02 13:38:49 UTC --- Created attachment 26553 -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26553 Remove deprecation warning for -I- (gcc-4.6.2) Patch against gcc-4.6.2 to remove the deprecation warning for -I- since there's no complete replacement for it yet. This will probably ruffle some feathers; sorry about that. FWIW, it's my intention to keep this patch updated (at http://achurch.org/patch-pile/#gcc) until either it's officially undeprecated or a replacement for the ignore source directory functionality of -I- is available.
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541 David Rosa jdrosa at yahoo dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||jdrosa at yahoo dot com --- Comment #21 from David Rosa jdrosa at yahoo dot com 2011-06-28 14:14:37 UTC --- I want to add my voice to others who have asked that the priority of this bug be elevated to P2. Eliminating the secondary function of -I- as quoted from the GNU preprocessor documentation is unacceptable. Second, the directory containing the current file is not searched for anything, unless it happens to be one of the directories named by an -I switch. Even if a different switch is used, like the -ignore-source-dir I've heard some rumblings about, can this issue please be elevated in priority and addressed soon? For our code base, we utilize gcc along with commercial cross-compilers. All of the cross-compilers we use support an option that implements the original -I- behavior and in order to maintain our existing code base, we either -I- to no longer be deprecated or replaced with a different option that implements the same behavior.
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541 Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||richard_sharman at mitel ||dot com --- Comment #20 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org 2011-02-14 22:54:02 UTC --- *** Bug 47741 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541 --- Comment #18 from Chris Ferguson fergusoc at us dot ibm.com 2010-12-08 15:59:03 UTC --- So there is no hope for this option then ? Anybody have a work around... We are considering drastic measures to work around this. Thanks, Chris From: chris.litchfield at gmail dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org To: Christopher Ferguson/Burlington/i...@ibmus Date: 12/06/2010 03:14 PM Subject:[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541 --- Comment #17 from Chris Litchfield chris.litchfield at gmail dot com 2010-12-06 20:13:30 UTC --- All versions since 4.0.0 seem to still have this issue. We are still awaiting it, and its not assigned to anyone either. -- Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541 --- Comment #19 from Chris Litchfield chris.litchfield at gmail dot com 2010-12-08 16:10:47 UTC --- For now, we keep the -iquote in and hope the other parts are not removed. In our shop we have many different functions to try and mitigate the problem. Include files have #defines at the top to prevent the includes from being double included, use the proper syntax of #include and #include when appropriate. Hard coding the include path is just horrible for coding and deemed unacceptable for us. One of the workarounds is drastic but involves configuration management to the extreme. All source files and include files in the same directory and to verify that NO include files are ever duplicated. This can be done and use virtual designs for your projects in IDEs. Redesign of the Include files so they do not pull in other include files or have a layer of include files that include other files but when you change the sub-include files, it automatically pulls in the above layer include file. Yes, all these are ugly for something that should be part of ANY include system. There is a reason an Include Path exists, and to use shortcuts as standard practice inside the compiler hurts everyone here complaining about it. Quite a few developers just continue to use older compiler versions as no need to upgrade into some of the pain. Wish we could assign this to someone. I bet we could keep the needed option as a separate option (-I-). Dont know what this was last reconfirmed 2006 though... Chris (In reply to comment #18) So there is no hope for this option then ? Anybody have a work around... We are considering drastic measures to work around this. Thanks, Chris From: chris.litchfield at gmail dot com gcc-bugzi...@gcc.gnu.org To: Christopher Ferguson/Burlington/i...@ibmus Date: 12/06/2010 03:14 PM Subject:[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541 --- Comment #17 from Chris Litchfield chris.litchfield at gmail dot com 2010-12-06 20:13:30 UTC --- All versions since 4.0.0 seem to still have this issue. We are still awaiting it, and its not assigned to anyone either. -- Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541 Chris Ferguson fergusoc at us dot ibm.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||fergusoc at us dot ibm.com --- Comment #16 from Chris Ferguson fergusoc at us dot ibm.com 2010-12-06 20:06:51 UTC --- So is this item a) still unresolved b) resolved but not verified/released c) never to be resolved ?
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541 --- Comment #17 from Chris Litchfield chris.litchfield at gmail dot com 2010-12-06 20:13:30 UTC --- All versions since 4.0.0 seem to still have this issue. We are still awaiting it, and its not assigned to anyone either.
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
--- Comment #15 from chris dot litchfield at gmail dot com 2010-05-18 19:48 --- This is still a huge issue. We would wish to inhibit use of the CURRENT Working directory to find include files. Basically FORCE every time a new include file is found with #include to start AGAIN from the begining of the Include Path system. using -iquote will simply cause the same problem where an include file that includes another include file will include that sub-include file even if you can pulled it away in a previous include path. Make files with VPATH or put Development paths first in lists are totally hosed by removing the -I- functionality. This is NOT an enhancement but a Priority 2 bug which there is NO WORKAROUND provided by removing a feature. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
--- Comment #14 from Johannes dot Schwenke at gmx dot de 2009-01-14 12:18 --- Please, could anyone increase priority and serverity of this bug? The current documentation that pretends that -iquote could work as replacement is plain wrong. A proper replacement for -I- is needed. A solution has been proposed long ago. Fixes are around. Of course, like other people (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34855#c5) my favourite solution would be if you could undo the deprecation of -I-, as it is used by other compilers. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
--- Comment #12 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-30 23:31 --- *** Bug 37291 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||steve dot gcc at telxio dot ||com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
--- Comment #13 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-08-30 23:37 --- *** Bug 37292 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
--- Comment #10 from dvilleneuve at kronos dot com 2008-07-30 15:39 --- An updated patch for gcc 4.3 is available in the following message: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-03/msg00653.html -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
--- Comment #11 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-07-30 17:44 --- Please ping that patch on the gcc-patches list. Thanks. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
--- Comment #8 from tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-01-18 21:52 --- Changing component; the patch here doesn't touch the preprocessor at all. -- tromey at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tromey at gcc dot gnu dot ||org Component|preprocessor|c http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
[Bug c/19541] need another option to support what -I- did just besides -iquote
--- Comment #9 from ISPARRY at BROCADE dot COM 2008-01-19 00:53 --- (In reply to comment #8) Changing component; the patch here doesn't touch the preprocessor at all. If you are changing the component, would not a better choice be driver than c? I agree the patch does not touch the preprocessor code, but from a user point of view it is a preprocessor issue. The 4.2.2 manuals say in section 3.11 that The preprocessor's direct interface is undocumented and subject to change, so whenever possible you should avoid using -Wp and let the driver handle the options instead. A user could reasonably (but wrongly) assume that the driver passes options like -I to the preprocessor. If you are changing the component, then can you change the severity to something more suitable than enhancment at the same time? Whilst I am all in favour of emitting warnings about obsolete features, until there is a working replacement for -I- it is a bug to complain that it is deprecated. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19541
