--- Comment #7 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2009-11-23 04:51 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> Not a GCC bug, the POSIX list generally agreed the effects of reordering
> system directories should be unspecified or undefined.
What the POSIX list says does not matter if this doesn't go fur
--- Comment #6 from jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org 2009-11-22 19:55 ---
Not a GCC bug, the POSIX list generally agreed the effects of reordering
system directories should be unspecified or undefined.
--
jsm28 at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-15 13:06 ---
Subject: Re: Option -I and POSIX conformance (c99 utility)
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, vincent at vinc17 dot org wrote:
> --- Comment #4 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2009-06-15 11:59 ---
> (In reply to comment
--- Comment #4 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2009-06-15 11:59 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> If you have modified the implementation (by putting headers/libraries in
> standard directories where those headers/libraries were not provided by
> the implementation in those versions in tho
--- Comment #3 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-15 10:57 ---
Subject: Re: Option -I and POSIX conformance (c99 utility)
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, vincent at vinc17 dot org wrote:
> This may be true for standard headers, but system directories don't contain
> only standard header
--- Comment #2 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2009-06-15 02:08 ---
This may be true for standard headers, but system directories don't contain
only standard headers: in practice, they generally also contain additional
libraries. And for instance, a -I/usr/include can be useful to overrid
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com 2009-06-15 01:01 ---
Subject: Re: New: Option -I and POSIX conformance (c99 utility)
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, vincent at vinc17 dot org wrote:
> As you can see, there is a difference for standard system include directories,
> for which t
