[openbeos] Re: compiler option -nostdinc
- From: "Axel Dörfler" <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 05 May 2003 20:12:21 +0200 CEST
Ingo Weinhold <bonefish@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I just wanted to ask why we are using the -nostdinc option, and
> > what's
> > the purpose behind it.
> > I think we initially used it to prevent gcc from including the Be
> > headers - but (as we already found out long ago) that's not what
> > this
> > option does.
> Did we? At least I believed until now, that it indeed causes the
> standard include paths to be omitted.
At least I did, but that was apparently not really correct ;-))
I just tried, and it obviously removes all built-in headers. Anyway,
our specified headers have a higher priority and will be taken before
any others will be used.
> > It prevents the headers from the gcc tool chain to be used.
> Such as <new>? But it apparently works -- you use it in BFS, don't
> you?
We have a <new> in our repository, that's why it does work.
> > And while we are able to build OpenBeOS with this option on the x86
> > platform, I cannot see a reason why we would like to replace the
> > gcc
> > headers with our own; AFAICT there is no advantage, but it causes
> > trouble when trying to build it on other platforms.
> > Does anybody mind or have reasons to mind when I remove that?
> >
> > AFAICT it doesn't have any side effects to the build on x86 (just
> > did a
> > full build).
> If the option does, what I suspected it to do, then I find that it
> makes
> very much sense, since we certainly want our build to depend as
> little as
> possible on the build platform -- ideally we could build on any
> system
> (any system with gcc maybe).
Indeed, that's exactly the point: it doesn't build on other platforms,
because some platform dependent headers are missing (such as <va-ppc.h>
which is the PowerPC varargs header, included in stdarg.h).
Now, we could either a) add the missing headers for each platform, or
b) rely on the tool chain to provide them.
I am strongly tending towards b) - but I think the best way to achieve
this would probably be to use the -nostdinc option, and add the tool
chain includes later on as well.
The header includes could be determined by the configure script.
Although I currently don't know where this information is taken from
(we could use platform defaults, though...).
What are you thinking?
> > BTW there seems to be a build problem: the objects for all kits are
> > located in the same directory (which might turn out as annoying
> > someday
> > :-).
> The objects for libopenbeos (i.e. App, Interface and Storage Kit)
> aren't
> created in the subdirectories, since the library is built there. I
> think,
> it should be possible to change this behavior, I just didn't take the
> time
> to do it.
Okay, well, we can also just solve it when there actually is a problem.
Adios...
Axel.
Other related posts: