On 20.07.2016 04:15, Jan Vesely wrote: > On Tue, 2016-07-19 at 12:49 -0400, Ilia Mirkin wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:13 AM, Tom Stellard <thomas.stellard@amd.c >> om> wrote: >>> >>> diff --git a/src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/llvm/invocation.cpp >>> b/src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/llvm/invocation.cpp >>> index 4b7de26..437d75e 100644 >>> --- a/src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/llvm/invocation.cpp >>> +++ b/src/gallium/state_trackers/clover/llvm/invocation.cpp >>> @@ -39,6 +39,8 @@ >>> #include <llvm-c/Target.h> >>> >>> #include <clang/CodeGen/CodeGenAction.h> >>> +#include "clang/Lex/PreprocessorOptions.h" >> >> Any reason that the rest of the includes use < > while this one uses >> " >> "? I believe the style decides whether system paths are used first or >> not. Or something along those lines... > > I believe we use llvm-config to get include dirs and put them on > commandline, so both should work. For consistency sake <> is better.
Indeed. AFAIK, the main (only?) difference between "" and <> is that the former implicitly adds the directory of the file containing the #include directive to the search path (as the very first entry), which isn't needed in this case. -- Earthling Michel Dänzer | http://www.amd.com Libre software enthusiast | Mesa and X developer
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ mesa-dev mailing list mesa-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/mesa-dev
