[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?
|
From: |
immanuel litzroth |
|
Subject: |
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ? |
|
Date: |
Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:04:02 +0200 |
> No, it does not. The search for include files with <> does not start in the
> current directory, where as for "" it does. That is the only difference.
> If the headers are system headers or not is not the difference.
All this stuff is completely implementation dependent.
Immanuel
- Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/27
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Miles Bader, 2010/07/27
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/27
- 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" ?, 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 <=
- 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, 2010/07/29
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Andreas Röhler, 2010/07/28