C[++]: Normalizing include syntax ("" vs <>)

[Stephan Bergmann]

On 10/09/2017 11:23 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 10/09/2017 10:29 AM, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>> On 10/06/2017 11:26 AM, Kaganski Mike wrote:
>>> 3. *Always* use "" syntax *only* for includes that refer to headers
>>> placed next to the current source in the same directory (or
>>> subdirectories), i.e. that would be found using the "." entry of -I
>>> switch. These are implementation headers. This applies to both includes
>>> in c[xx] files as well as in h[xx] residing in directories like
>>> /sw/source/core/access (as opposed to those in /sw/inc).
>>
>> Does that mean that once you're done we can stop adding -I. to 
>> SOLARINC in configure.ac?  (Also, it's unclear to me what
>>
>>    -I$(dir $(3))
>>
>> in gb_CObject__command_pattern in 
>> solenv/gbuild/platform/com_{GCC,MSC}_class.mk is good for, and whether 
>> it could then be dropped, too.)
> 
> Seeing that both solenv/gbuild/platform/com_{GCC_defs,MSC_class}.mk 
> already drop SOLARINC's -I. from gb_LinkTarget_INCLUDE, it is probably 
> rather the latter -I$(dir $(3)) that can be dropped from 
> gb_CObject__command_pattern in 
> solenv/gbuild/platform/com_{GCC,MSC}_class.mk once you're done.

meanwhile done with 
<https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=ecbaf980625a9e7b06abe91c7c70e78f6ad469a7> 
"-I$(dir $(3)) in gb_CObject__command_pattern is no longer needed" and 
<https://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=f218f8f6c8c587d2d78679f935093329f145fede> 
"-I$(dir $(3)) in gb_CObject__command_pattern is no longer needed"