Inviting wider audience to the discussion.
Original Message
Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2012 00:43:58 +0300
From: Andriy Gapon
Subject: Re: gcc46 header search path
on 05/07/2012 17:15 Andriy Gapon said the following:
>
> Gerald,
>
> while thinking what to reply in our other conversat
Top posting, because I'm lame...
I think it shouldn't be there. It is non-standard behavior both in the gcc
world and in the freebsd world. It does save a little on makefiles on some
ports, but most ports already grok things are in /usr/local or opt/local and
cope.
Warner
On Jul 6, 2012, at
on 06/07/2012 18:10 Warner Losh said the following:
> I think it shouldn't be there. It is non-standard behavior both in the gcc
> world and in the freebsd world. It does save a little on makefiles on some
> ports, but most ports already grok things are in /usr/local or opt/local and
> cope.
On Jul 6, 2012, at 9:14 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 06/07/2012 18:10 Warner Losh said the following:
>> I think it shouldn't be there. It is non-standard behavior both in the gcc
>> world and in the freebsd world. It does save a little on makefiles on some
>> ports, but most ports already gr
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. The
On 6 Jul 2012, at 17:54, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> 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
On Jul 6, 2012, at 1:11 PM, David Chisnall wrote:
> On 6 Jul 2012, at 17:54, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>> 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 som
On 2012-07-06 22:44, Warner Losh wrote:
...
> The reasons are that /usr/local/include superceds anything in /usr/include.
> This is dangerous. Users should get just the system default libraries and
> headers when they compile unless they ask for more. That's what makes it
> stupid.
Well, one
on 06/07/2012 22:11 David Chisnall said the following:
> On 6 Jul 2012, at 17:54, Andriy Gapon wrote:
>
>> 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
on 07/07/2012 00:45 Dimitry Andric said the following:
> On 2012-07-06 22:44, Warner Losh wrote:
> ...
>> The reasons are that /usr/local/include superceds anything in /usr/include.
>> This is dangerous. Users should get just the system default libraries and
>> headers when they compile unless
10 matches
Mail list logo
