[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?
From: |
Óscar Fuentes |
Subject: |
Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ? |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Jul 2010 04:23:20 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Emacs sources use the idiom
#include <config.h>
Is there a specific reason for this? Usually the curly braces are for
headers that live outside the project. Some code analysis tools assume
that. And some compilers (including gcc, AFAIK) use a different
procedure for locating headers surrounded by curly braces, which may
produce unexpected results for headers included from config.h.
Any objections to replacing <config.h> and <epaths.h> with "config.h"
and "epaths.h" ?
- Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?,
Óscar Fuentes <=
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Miles Bader, 2010/07/27
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/27
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, immanuel litzroth, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28