[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: why not #include "config.h"?

From: Steffen Dettmer
Subject: Re: why not #include "config.h"?
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 2009 11:34:00 +0200

On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 9:43 AM <address@hidden> wrote:
> * Steffen Dettmer wrote on Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 11:26:33AM CEST:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:35 PM, wrote:
> > > Not AFAIK.  It works because automake adds -I. by default.
> >
> > Yes, unfortunately it adds it.
> You can avoid that with the 'nostdinc' option.

Ahh, now I see, it is an automake option, too; ok, thanks :)

> I haven't seen a report with config.h, but IIRC there was at least one
> report where a package relied on another header to be searched in the
> build tree before picking up the default version of the header in the
> source tree.

well... happy debugging in case something wents wrong :)
Maybe this was some system supporting some other build mechanism
beside autoconf.
  BTW, we had this in the past too. But when it is getting
  non-trivial (auto generated sources, libs with conditionals,
  dynamic things, "strange special steps that are needed"...) all
  "build environments" we used - except autoconf/automake - failed.

Thanks again for the explantions! It is very helpful.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]