Am Sonntag, den 15.11.2009, 13:32 +0100 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:50:39PM +0100, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > > > $ srcdir=$PWD builddir=$PWD gcc -isystem=$srcdir/include
> > > > -I$srcdir/include -I$builddir -I$builddir/include test.c -o test && ls
> > > > test
> > > > test
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:50:39PM +0100, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > > $ srcdir=$PWD builddir=$PWD gcc -isystem=$srcdir/include
> > > -I$srcdir/include -I$builddir -I$builddir/include test.c -o test && ls
> > > test
> > > test
> > > $ srcdir=$PWD builddir=$PWD gcc -nostdinc -isystem $(gcc
> > > -p
Am Sonntag, den 15.11.2009, 12:35 +0100 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:17:50PM +0100, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> >
> > The advantage is that this does exatly what we want for the target.
> > Remove /usr/include from the include search directories but still keep
> > the gcc interna
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:17:50PM +0100, Felix Zielcke wrote:
>
> The advantage is that this does exatly what we want for the target.
> Remove /usr/include from the include search directories but still keep
> the gcc internal one for e.g. stdarg.h
> As far as I understand the gcc manual, isystem
Am Sonntag, den 15.11.2009, 12:12 +0100 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:04:58PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:16:45PM +0100, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, den 04.11.2009, 11:48 +0100 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks to the hin
Am Sonntag, den 15.11.2009, 12:04 +0100 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:16:45PM +0100, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 04.11.2009, 11:48 +0100 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> > >
> > > Thanks to the hint from rubisher I looked now at Linux Makefiles.
> > > They use this:
> >
On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 12:04:58PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:16:45PM +0100, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, den 04.11.2009, 11:48 +0100 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> > >
> > > Thanks to the hint from rubisher I looked now at Linux Makefiles.
> > > They use this:
> >
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 10:16:45PM +0100, Felix Zielcke wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, den 04.11.2009, 11:48 +0100 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> >
> > Thanks to the hint from rubisher I looked now at Linux Makefiles.
> > They use this:
> >
> > NOSTDINC_FLAGS += -nostdinc -isystem $(shell $(CC) -print-file-name
Am Mittwoch, den 04.11.2009, 11:48 +0100 schrieb Felix Zielcke:
> Am Donnerstag, den 29.10.2009, 11:36 +0100 schrieb Robert Millan:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:14:33AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > >
> > > It appears that -nostdinc also excludes GCC internal header directory (for
> > > e.g. s
Am Donnerstag, den 29.10.2009, 11:36 +0100 schrieb Robert Millan:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:14:33AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> > It appears that -nostdinc also excludes GCC internal header directory (for
> > e.g. stdarg.h), which I didn't expect.
> >
> > Does someone know a clean way to
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:46:11AM +0100, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> Robert Millan wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:14:33AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> >
> >> It appears that -nostdinc also excludes GCC internal header directory (for
> >> e.g. stdarg.h), which I didn't expect.
Robert Millan wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:14:33AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
>> It appears that -nostdinc also excludes GCC internal header directory (for
>> e.g. stdarg.h), which I didn't expect.
>>
>> Does someone know a clean way to resolve this? A quick check at GCC
>> command-li
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 11:14:33AM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> It appears that -nostdinc also excludes GCC internal header directory (for
> e.g. stdarg.h), which I didn't expect.
>
> Does someone know a clean way to resolve this? A quick check at GCC
> command-line options didn't reveal a wa
It appears that -nostdinc also excludes GCC internal header directory (for
e.g. stdarg.h), which I didn't expect.
Does someone know a clean way to resolve this? A quick check at GCC
command-line options didn't reveal a way to explicitly include that
directory afterwards without knowing its path.
Committed then.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 05:16:38PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
>
> It should be pretty obvious that we don't want to use system headers when
> building target, but we've been for so long without this flag that I want
> to make sure.
>
> Does anyone see a problem with it?
>
> --
15 matches
Mail list logo