[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lwip-users] std includes
From: |
Kieran Mansley |
Subject: |
Re: [lwip-users] std includes |
Date: |
Thu, 14 Jul 2011 13:21:32 +0100 |
On Thu, 2011-07-14 at 12:57 +0200, Simon Goldschmidt wrote:
> Kieran Mansley <address@hidden> wrote:
> > The conflict between the use of the DEBUG value in Timmy's system could
> > work the other way in another setup, and so I agree in that sense that
> > changing the include order in lwIP would be futile.
>
> Exactly, and by putting the std-lib includes at the top of a file, you
> cannot put OS includes before that. In a case contrary to Timmy's,
> you're then left with the only option of changing the include order in
> the lwIP files.
>
> So to me, it seems like this would only solve Timmy's case (which is a
> good thing) but not the inverted case.
Yes, there isn't a simple solution that will solve both, so lets not
worry about solving either/both, but instead give lwIP the most sensible
include order. To me this is system includes first, lwIP includes
second. Is there a counter argument to doing the includes in that
order?
Kieran
- [lwip-users] std includes, timmy brolin, 2011/07/13
- Re: [lwip-users] std includes, address@hidden, 2011/07/13
- Re: [lwip-users] std includes, Kieran Mansley, 2011/07/14
- Re: [lwip-users] std includes, Simon Goldschmidt, 2011/07/14
- Re: [lwip-users] std includes, Kieran Mansley, 2011/07/14
- Re: [lwip-users] std includes, Simon Goldschmidt, 2011/07/14
- Re: [lwip-users] std includes,
Kieran Mansley <=
- Re: [lwip-users] std includes, Simon Goldschmidt, 2011/07/14
- Re: [lwip-users] std includes, Bill Auerbach, 2011/07/14
- Re: [lwip-users] std includes, Simon Goldschmidt, 2011/07/14
- Re: [lwip-users] std includes, Kieran Mansley, 2011/07/15
- Re: [lwip-users] std includes, Timmy Brolin, 2011/07/14