[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?
From: |
Miles Bader |
Subject: |
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ? |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:30:17 +0900 |
Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:
> #include <config.h>
> Is there a specific reason for this?
I think this was discussed recently, and I seem to recall that the
reason given was that "config.h" doesn't work if the user tries to build
with an out-of-tree object directory _after_ having previously built in
the source tree (without an intervening "make distclean" in the source
dir).
Seems very silly to me ("don't do that!") but ...
-Miles
--
Laughter, n. An interior convulsion, producing a distortion of the features
and accompanied by inarticulate noises. It is infectious and, though
intermittent, incurable.
- Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/27
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?,
Miles Bader <=
- 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
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28