From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Subject: bug#22186: Use {C,CPLUS,OBJC}_INCLUDE_PATH instead of CPATH Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 15:09:00 +0100 Message-ID: <878u4ronlv.fsf@gnu.org> References: <871tama22g.fsf@igalia.com> <87mvt8iwei.fsf@inria.fr> <87lh8s6s9j.fsf@igalia.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46509) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a9vjS-000775-Kh for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:10:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a9vjO-0008I7-R6 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:10:06 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.43]:47678) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1a9vjO-0008I2-NQ for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:10:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84) (envelope-from ) id 1a9vjO-0003Gp-G7 for bug-guix@gnu.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2015 09:10:02 -0500 Sender: "Debbugs-submit" Resent-Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <87lh8s6s9j.fsf@igalia.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Fri, 18 Dec 2015 10:05:44 +0100") List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Guix List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: bug-guix-bounces+gcggb-bug-guix=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: Andy Wingo Cc: 22186@debbugs.gnu.org Andy Wingo skribis: > On Thu 17 Dec 2015 22:43, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: > >> Andy Wingo skribis: >> >>> We should be using C_INCLUDE_PATH instead of CPATH, to mark system >>> headers as system headers. Except that C_INCLUDE_PATH only works for >>> C, so we need to also set CPLUS_INCLUDE_PATH and OBJC_INCLUDE_PATH. >>> And that's the proposal of this bug :) >> >> The intent of this =E2=80=9Csystem header=E2=80=9D classification, AIUI,= is to not >> bother users with issues in libc headers. > > I don't think this is true, for what it's worth :) If we take FHS > systems to be the de-facto default standard on how things should behave, > -isystem covers all of /usr/include, so in practice it covers not just > libc warnings, but many other warnings, which when you pass -Werror > would then become errors. Now that you mention it, it makes a lot of sense to me; I must have lived away from FHS for too long now. ;-) We=E2=80=99re right on time to make the change you propose in =E2=80=98core= -updates=E2=80=99. I=E2=80=99ll give it a try and we=E2=80=99ll see how it goes. Thanks for bearing with me! Ludo=E2=80=99.