Re: std include path for gcc 3.2.1

[Matthias Klose <doko@cs.tu-berlin.de>]

Chris Halls writes:
> Hi, during the discussion about patches for stlport to make sure that it
> uses the correct include path, this was noted:
> 
> --------
> From: "Kevin B. Hendricks" 
> Subject: Re: [dev] stlport compiler differences
> To: dev@openoffice.org, Ken Foskey
> 
> > > The patch for gcc 3.2.1 might include the minor version like
> > > include/3.2.1 or as in debian is may not include/3.2.
> 
> Since gcc 3.2.1 has not been officially released yet, what do you want to
> bet that Debian is using a pre-3.2.1 that still uses the 3.2 header path
> by mistake.
> ---------
> 
> Does anyone know whether the std include path will stay at include/3.2 or
> not for the official 3.2.1 release?

at least until now, we didn't include the subminor version number in
a "visible" string. Package names, executable names, and the include
path did stay the same during minor releases. So why not keep it? As
you say, it becomes difficult to track the path with prereleases or
snapshots. Why not extract the path at configure time?

	gcc-3.2 -v -E -H -x c++ - < /dev/null

or

	gcc-3.2 -v