Re: [jamboost] -isystem and warnings

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-27 23:30:30

Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:

> [2002-10-27] David Abrahams wrote:
> 
> >Rene Rivera <grafik666_at_[hidden]> writes:
> >
> >> [2002-10-27] David Abrahams wrote:
> >> 
> >> >
> >> >In some of my Boost.Build v2 testing I've encountered warnings from
> >> >GCC because we're normally using -isystem to add Boost headers as part
> >> >of the #include <...> -only search path (there appears to be no other
> >> >way). I'm beginning to think that we have to give up on -isystem,
> >> >since it causes so many problems, including that on some platforms it
> >> >adds an implicit extern "C" { } wrapper. For the record, I still think
> >> >we're doing the right thing by using angle-includes for boost.
> >> 
> >> That's fine for GCC, but if we switch to "-I" we'll probably get other
> >> warnings. 
> >
> >I don't understand what you're saying. We'll get warnings 
> >with other compilers if we switch GCC to use "-I" for
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ><sysinclude>? You can't mean _that_.
> 
> I do mean it... I used to get some rather silly warnings, like the very
> anoying "no newline at eof" but only for <> files not "" files without
> -isystem. I remember others but can't rmember the specifics, and it was in
> my code not Boost code ;-)

How will changing what we do for GCC affect other compilers?

> >No, the other way around. We're not getting warnings that we'd see if
> >we were using -I.
> 
> Ahh got it... I'm fine with changing it to "-I". Even though "-isystem" is
> the "correct" way, but if it doesn't work, oh well.

Yeah, that's my attitude as well.
-- 
David Abrahams
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com