Re: svn commit: r297435 - head: still problems for stage 3 when gcc 4.2.1 is avoided (powerpc64 self-hosted build)

[Just a top-post showing what powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc/powerpc64-gcc has for the default include search places:]

powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc/powerpc64-gcc also looks in /usr/local/include before /usr/include : see below.

> # portmaster --list-origins
> . . .
> devel/powerpc64-xtoolchain-gcc
> . . .
> 
> # /usr/local/bin/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0-gcc --version
> powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0-gcc (FreeBSD Ports Collection for powerpc64) 5.3.0
> Copyright (C) 2015 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions.  There is NO
> warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
> 
> # echo '' |/usr/local/bin/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0-gcc -v -x c++ - -o /dev/null
> . . .
> ignoring nonexistent directory "/usr/local/lib/gcc/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0/5.3.0/../../../../include/c++/5.3.0"
> ignoring nonexistent directory "/usr/local/lib/gcc/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0/5.3.0/../../../../include/c++/5.3.0/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0"
> ignoring nonexistent directory "/usr/local/lib/gcc/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0/5.3.0/../../../../include/c++/5.3.0/backward"
> ignoring nonexistent directory "/usr/local/lib/gcc/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0/5.3.0/../../../../powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0/include"
> #include "..." search starts here:
> #include <...> search starts here:
>  /usr/local/lib/gcc/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0/5.3.0/include
>  /usr/local/include
>  /usr/local/lib/gcc/powerpc64-portbld-freebsd11.0/5.3.0/include-fixed
>  /usr/include
> End of search list.
> . . .


===
Mark Millard
markmi at dsl-only.net

On 2016-Apr-1, at 7:25 AM, Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 2:25 AM, Dimitry Andric <dim_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 01 Apr 2016, at 00:44, Warner Losh <imp_at_bsdimp.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mar 31, 2016, at 4:34 PM, Bryan Drewery <bdrewery_at_freebsd.org> wrote:
> >> I didn't realize the ports compiler was defaulting /usr/local/include
> >> into the search path now.  It does not have /usr/local/lib in the
> >> default library path as far as I can tell.  It's also broken for its
> >> -rpath (noted in its pkg-message).  So having a default
> >> /usr/local/include path seems odd.
> >
> > It has for a while now. It’s one of the maddening inconsistencies that abound in this
> > area. I took a poll a while ago and there seemed to be widespread support for adding
> > it to the base compiler.
> 
> This was the main reason /usr/local/include was *not* included in the
> base compiler, otherwise it would unpredictably pick up headers in
> /usr/local/include during builds.  You can never know which conflicting
> headers a certain user has installed in /usr/local/include... :)
> 
> That's why it shouldn't be *FIRST*, not why it shouldn't be there
> at all.
> 
> >> Adding -isystem /usr/include to fix this is probably possible but
> >> there's a risk someone will remove it as redundant.  In this case I wish
> >> /usr/include was first but I'm not sure what impact that would have on
> >> consumers expecting /usr/local/include (and /usr/local/lib) overrides to
> >> work, though they would need to pass a -L /usr/local/lib anyhow and
> >> would likely be passing -I /usr/local/lib too.
> >
> > /usr/include should be first. But it isn’t. That’s another inconsistency that was found
> > when we looked at /usr/local stuff. Someone recently added /usr/local/bin to the path,
> > if I recall correctly.
> 
> Isn't that a bit of a bikeshed?  I guess some people would just as well
> prefer /usr/local/include to be first, just like some people prefer
> /usr/local/bin before /usr/bin in their PATH.
> 
> Sigh. No. /usr/local is moving into many different things in the base and ports. We should
> do it in a consistent way. What we have now is not consistent and somewhat brittle.
>  
> In any case, if such paths are added to external compilers, we better
> make sure almost everything in buildworld uses -nostdinc, and specifying
> exactly the include directories we need, and no others.  Cumbersome, but
> maybe for a good cause.
> 
> That's the non-brittle solution here. An over-reliance on defaults makes it
> difficult to ensure other compilers will work, especially ones we don't
> tightly control the defaults for.
> 
> Warner