"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On April 2, 2003 12:15 am, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> > At least gcc doesn't do that. It looks in the directory that the
> > source file came from, which is *not* the current directory for out of
> > tree builds. So the -I. is very much needed.
>
On April 2, 2003 12:15 am, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> At least gcc doesn't do that. It looks in the directory that the
> source file came from, which is *not* the current directory for out of
> tree builds. So the -I. is very much needed.
OK, but then we don't need to include the source dir .
--
Francois Gouget <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Though it does not appear to be specified in the standard, all compilers
> I know of first look for y.tab.h in the current directory if included
> using quotes.
At least gcc doesn't do that. It looks in the directory that the
source file came from, wh
On April 1, 2003 09:24 pm, Francois Gouget wrote:
> Though it does not appear to be specified in the standard, all compilers
> I know of first look for y.tab.h in the current directory if included
> using quotes.
I don't have a standard handy, but AFAIK K&R specifies this behaviour...
--
Dimi.
On 1 Apr 2003, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> "Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > True, but why do we need the -I.? Do we need to ever include anything
> > from the current build dir?
>
> Yes, some headers are generated, for instance the y.tab.h files.
Shouldn't these be included wi
"Dimitrie O. Paun" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> True, but why do we need the -I.? Do we need to ever include anything
> from the current build dir?
Yes, some headers are generated, for instance the y.tab.h files.
--
Alexandre Julliard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 1 Apr 2003, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> It's needed for out of tree builds, in that case the include paths are
> all different.
True, but why do we need the -I.? Do we need to ever include anything
from the current build dir?
--
Dimi.
Rolf Kalbermatter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> While downloading and compiling the latest CVS sources I noticed that the
> command line for each (most?) source files reads like
>
> gcc -c -I. -I. -I../../include -I../../include . or similar
>
> This is not a serious problem but the
While downloading and compiling the latest CVS sources I noticed that the
command line for each (most?) source files reads like
gcc -c -I. -I. -I../../include -I../../include . or similar
This is not a serious problem but the duplication of the two include parameters
strikes me as odd
