This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Names of header include guards
- From: Steve Ellcey <sje at cup dot hp dot com>
- To: libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 14:48:17 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Names of header include guards
- Reply-to: sje at cup dot hp dot com
I just ran into a problem because the include guard on the C++ ctime
header file changed from _CPP_CTIME to _CTIME. The problem is that the
HP header files use the macro _CTIME as a guard around the function
ctime() and this conflicts with the g++ use of it as a file level
include guard on the ctime header file. I can obviously use the fixinc
mechanism to tweek the HP header file but I thought I would see if it
were possible to convince people that the the include guard should
HP uses _XYZ_INCLUDED for a header file called xyz.h, by having the
_INCLUDED on the end of all header file include guards it puts them in
their own namespace (so to speak). This seems like a useful idea, any
chance of doing something similar for gcc/g++ header files? I notice
that many of the C files already use _H as a suffix on their file
level include guards. This presumably matches the .h of the file,
but C++ headers don't use .h.
The headers in include/backward all start with _BACKWARD and the files
in c_compatibility directory use _GLIBCXX as a prefix, but the files in
include/c and include/c_std in the libstdc++-v3 directory don't have any
prefix other then an underscore, nor do they have a standard suffix.
What do people think? A lot of these guards are pretty generic names
that could easily conflict with macros in other system headers on HP-UX
or other systems, epecially the ones in include/std like _SET, _LIST,
_STACK, or _VECTOR.