Re: gcc 3.2's cpp breaks configure scripts

[Nix]

On Fri, 2 Aug 2002, Paul Eggert said:
> If GCC warned only when there was a real problem, a lot of these issues
> would go away.

Alternatively, GCC could simply ignore the -I switches that would
trigger those warnings in situations where those warnings are now
emitted. Is there ever any reason you'd *want* GCC to do that
reordering? I can't think of any occasion when I'd want to avoid
fixincluded headers... they have after all been fixincluded for a
reason (and if the fixincluded headers are broken the solution is
to delete the broken ones and fix fixincludes, not to supply
an extra -I/usr/include switch to everything!)

-- 
`There's something satisfying about killing JWZ over and over again.'
                                        -- 1i, personal communication