This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: GCJ and $PREFIX/include revisited
Michael Koch <konqueror@gmx.de> writes:
| On Thu, Dec 18, 2003 at 06:18:39PM +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
| >
| > | >>>>> "Gerald" == Gerald Pfeifer <gerald@pfeifer.com> writes:
| > |
| > | Gerald> The c++ headers are now nicely versioned, in c++/3.4/, but the java
| > | Gerald> headers still are put directly into $PREFIX. How about doing something
| > | Gerald> like java/3.4 or gcj/3.4 in parallel to c++?
| > |
| > | Gerald> And do we really need ffi.h and jvmpi.h there?
| > |
| > | While talking with a couple folks about this on irc, I realized I
| > | don't understand why we don't change the layout a bit to get versioned
| > | headers for everything all at once.
| > |
| > | I.e., instead of $(includedir)/c++/$(version), $(includedir)/gcj/$(version),
| > | etc, why not make $(includedir)/$(version)/ as the base, and then
| > | install headers directly under that?
| >
| > you probably want $(includedir)/GCC-$(version)/
| > ^^^^
|
| What about lowercase:
|
| $(includedir)/gcc-$(version)/
|
| I think thats more natural.
Whatever. As far as as it is not confused with the driver named 'gcc'
-- which also happens to have version in its name.
I think GCC is better in the sense that it refers to the whole compiler
collection.
-- Gaby