[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?
From: |
Dan Nicolaescu |
Subject: |
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ? |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Jul 2010 15:50:13 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) |
Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:
> 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" ?
Given that this is for your own needs, it seems that this is a change
that you can make in your local tree. The code in question is very
unlikely to change otherwise, so you can always safely stash it/unstash it
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, (continued)
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Stefan Monnier, 2010/07/29
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Andreas Röhler, 2010/07/28
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Yavor Doganov, 2010/07/28
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?,
Dan Nicolaescu <=