[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?
From: |
Óscar Fuentes |
Subject: |
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ? |
Date: |
Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:59:03 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) |
Andreas Schwab <address@hidden> writes:
> Óscar Fuentes <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Maybe is my hideous English, but as explained on my original message <>
>> is giving me problems with some tool.
>
> The only difference between <> and "" is that the latter first searches
> in the same directory as the containing file, before any -I directories.
> Since for an out-of-src build config.h is never found in the source
> directory this should not make any difference in practice.
Precisely, it seems that Emacs is using <> because some people ends
having a config.h on the source directory, and even they defend this
practice as a convenience.
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, (continued)
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, immanuel litzroth, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Jan Djärv, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Óscar Fuentes, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Andreas Schwab, 2010/07/28
- Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?,
Óscar Fuentes <=
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Stefan Monnier, 2010/07/29
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Andreas Röhler, 2010/07/28
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Yavor Doganov, 2010/07/28
Re: Why <config.h> and not "config.h" ?, Dan Nicolaescu, 2010/07/28