[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: double inclusion guard

From: Bruno Haible
Subject: Re: double inclusion guard
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 01:17:09 +0200
User-agent: KMail/1.9.9

Hi Sam,

> > You probably renamed the inclusion guard (_GL_STDLIB_H)
> > appropriate (as recommended).
> does this "as recommended" mean that you are now more amenable to
> accepting my patch?
> http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/gnulib-tool.patch?view=log

The fact that you have been testing this approach for a year and have reported
just this one problem with it gives it some trust. Also Bruce Korb's libposix
needs a similar treatment.

But I'm wondering whether we might see different behaviours when using compilers
which support #include_next and other compilers which don't. When you have two
gnulib-generated files


and the compiler options include "-Iextra/gllib -Imain/gllib", then
with compilers of the first kind the program will include

  extra/gllib/stdlib.h -> main/gllib/stdlib.h -> /usr/include/stdlib.h

whereas with compilers of the second kind the program will include

  extra/gllib/stdlib.h -> /usr/include/stdlib.h

Such differences would be very hard to diagnose when they lead to problems.
Any ideas?


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]