http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55115
Pierre Poissinger <pierre.poissinger at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |WAITING
Resolution|INVALID |
--- Comment #6 from Pierre Poissinger <pierre.poissinger at gmail dot com>
2012-10-29 14:54:40 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> Adding an option just for cproto is definitely not a good idea, just fix
> cproto
> instead.
cproto use gcc via 'gcc -E' and is actually limit itself at grabbing func
signature.
> The right answer seems to be to create a directory of empty files
> with the names of the missing headers and point GCC to it with -I then cproto
> can proceed as normal, and generate replacements for the empty files.
Yes - but that smells like a complex task to overcome a change of
'functionality' that was there for decades in nearly every compiler :-)
> Refusing to compile when a header is missing is a huge improvement on the old
> behaviour.
Refuse to compile: Yes - I agree
Refuse to preproc: Seems a little bit harsh... and breaks stuffs actually
