This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Failures in tests for obj-c++....
- From: David Ayers <d dot ayers at inode dot at>
- To: Ziemowit Laski <zlaski at apple dot com>
- Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2005 09:15:12 +0200
- Subject: Re: Failures in tests for obj-c++....
- References: <5460e3330506062226100b93a5@mail.gmail.com> <fdf3195d87b474950de14470365f9073@apple.com> <42A57FFD.8040001@inode.at> <42A58667.4040204@inode.at> <42A59AFA.8010907@inode.at> <42A60F63.5050102@inode.at> <a2848731c349564fa6365ae80a812c1c@apple.com>
Ziemowit Laski wrote:
>
> On 7 Jun 2005, at 14.19, David Ayers wrote:
>
>> Also we should be weary of relying on:
>> #include "objc/runtime.h" /* the kitchen sink */
>> which will in turn:
>> #include <objc/files.h>
>
>
> Ah, good catch! Is there any reason that the latter cannot be turned into
>
> #include "files.h"
>
> instead?
>
Actually, I believe that would be correct.
Would such a patch be pre-approved?
Cheers,
David Ayers
PS-OT: This reminds me, I always found the following comment in the
autoconf info pages confusing:
"Use `#include <config.h>' instead
of `#include "config.h"', and pass the C compiler a `-I.' option (or
`-I..'; whichever directory contains `config.h'). That way, even if
the source directory is configured itself (perhaps to make a
distribution), other build directories can also be configured without
finding the `config.h' from the source directory."
the -I directives are not limited to system includes. I see no gain in
searching for config.h as a system header.
Am I missing something or is there value in bringing this up on the
autoconf list?