[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?
From: |
Stefan Monnier |
Subject: |
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ? |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:26:15 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
> 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).
Actually, I'd be happy to have a recipe to reproduce the problem.
This way we can fix it in the Makefile, so that the choice between the
two becomes "irrelevant", rather than being based on "avoid a poorly
understood problem in some rare corner case".
Stefan
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, (continued)
- 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
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Andreas Schwab, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?,
Stefan Monnier <=
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, 2010/07/28