Re: Site Macro Directory

[Paul Eggert]

> From: Akim Demaille <address@hidden>
> Date: 24 May 2002 12:35:53 +0200

> | Every other tool that I know of that accepts a `-I' option (including
> | gcc, GNU make, GNU m4, and perl) prepends the arguments to the search
> | path in the order specified.  As a result, I was extremely surprised
> | to discover that autoconf does the reverse.
> 
> Because the logic is to respect the last flag occurrence first for all
> the other flags but this one.  Honestly, to me it is a serious bug in
> all the other implementations.

On this point I must agree with Mark D. Roth.  It is a serious
inconsistency if autoconf processes -I options backwards from every
other command in the universe.  (It is news to me that Autoconf does
this; otherwise I would have complained earlier.  :-)

POSIX does not specify Autoconf, but POSIX does specify utility syntax
guidelines that Autoconf should follow unless there's a good reason
otherwise.  You can find them at this URL:

http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/basedefs/xbd_chap12.html#tag_12_02

Autoconf's treatment of -I seems to violate Guideline 11, which reads
as follows:

   The order of different options relative to one another should not
   matter, unless the options are documented as mutually-exclusive and
   such an option is documented to override any incompatible options
   preceding it. If an option that has option-arguments is repeated, the
   option and option-argument combinations should be interpreted in the
   order specified on the command line.

I understand that there is a good argument for doing it backwards, but
in my view it is outweighed by the confusion this engenders, and by
the lack of conformance to the standard.  cc, perl, etc are not going
to change to Autoconf's viewpoint, and it's better for everybody
concerned if we fall into line on this issue.