[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 21:48:06 +0200 |
User-agent: |
KMail/1.9.9 |
Hi Bruce, Gary,
Bruce Korb wrote:
> KISS: once you've included a gnulib mumble.h, all other
> gnulib mumble.h-es are noop-ed.
Nope. We cannot do this, we don't want this. It would mean that every gnulib-
derived <stdlib.h> file would provide the same macros and functions. This is
not compatible with gnulib's module system. It would mean that every package
that includes <stdlib.h> needs the replacements/overrides of _all_ functions
that are commonly declared in <stdlib.h>: both the declaration and - to avoid
link errors - also the code. No, we don't want to reduce the modularity
of gnulib that much.
> it is theoretically possible
> for the contents to vary based on how the installing package
> gets configured.
It is not only "theoretically possible", it is the common case.
Bruno
- error: redefinition of `struct random_data', Sam Steingold, 2010/10/11
- Re: error: redefinition of `struct random_data', Bruno Haible, 2010/10/11
- Re: error: redefinition of `struct random_data', Sam Steingold, 2010/10/11
- Re: double inclusion guard, Bruno Haible, 2010/10/11
- Re: double inclusion guard, Gary V. Vaughan, 2010/10/11
- Re: double inclusion guard, Eric Blake, 2010/10/11
- Re: double inclusion guard, Gary V. Vaughan, 2010/10/11
- Re: double inclusion guard, Bruce Korb, 2010/10/12
- Re: double inclusion guard,
Bruno Haible <=
- Re: double inclusion guard, Bruno Haible, 2010/10/12
- Re: double inclusion guard, Gary V. Vaughan, 2010/10/13
- Re: double inclusion guard, Gary V. Vaughan, 2010/10/12