C[++]: Normalizing include syntax ("" vs <>)
Stephan Bergmann
sbergman at redhat.com
Mon Oct 9 09:23:58 UTC 2017
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.
(And -I. dropped from SOLARINC in configure.ac as an orthogonal clean
up? Would need auditing what other places using SOLARINC (besides those
gb_LinkTarget_INCLUDE that drop it anyway) might need it for.)
More information about the LibreOffice
mailing list