Re: [boost] Boost.Build/Boost.Jam issues w/ gcc v302

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-14 15:26:57

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ronald Garcia" <garcia_at_[hidden]>

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
> >I don't know what you mean; you've done the best analysis I've seen to
> >date. Headers found through -isystem should be allowed to contain C++
code!
> >
> >
> >
> At the time I was thinking that perhaps -isystem should not set
> different line number flags at all, but upon checking the docs again I
> see that it does call for special treatment of headers, at least with
> regard to warnings.

Really? For all platforms? Because we're not seeing any issues on other
platforms.

> My question now though is the following:  should the
> boost libraries be treated specially with respect to warnings? Does
> using -isystem inhibit detection of warnings that are otherwise valid?

It might. I don't think boost headers should normally be exempt from the
ordinary warnings, if -isystem does in fact do that. On the other hand,
there doesn't seem to be another way to get headers added to the #include
<...> path only with GCC.

> I will try out the patch and submit a bug report.  Thanks for the quick
> help on this.

No prob.

-----------------------------------------------------------
           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com