[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.
oki,
Steffen
Re: why not #include "config.h"?, Thomas Dickey, 2009/09/22