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