>
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 02:03:45PM +0200, Pavel Grunt wrote:
> > Hi Christophe,
> >
> > they were patches changing spice common includes to use <> instead of "",
> > so I
> > would keep it.
>
> The generated code is in spice-common/common, so my understanding is
> that "" should be used there for headers from the spice-common module
> (see spice-common/common/region.c for example). Headers from other
> modules (spice-protocol) should use <>.
> In this case, it's changing #include <common/...> to #include
> "common/..." (but it would do the wrong thing if we started passing
> spice-protocol headers on the command line)
>
> Christophe
>
Given that:
- all .c files in spice-common are in common directory;
- spice-common is intended to be used only by spice-server and spice-gtk;
- spice-server and spice-gtk has no common subdirectory;
the local path is never used for "common/.." include file, that is
path for local "common/foo.h" is "common/common/foo.h" which will never
exist. Compiler find the include using the fallback "system" include way
(same used for <> include).
However there should be cases where a local include is more suitable
that is .c files or headers never included by users of spice-common.
To have more control I could suggest something like
if options.includes:
for i in options.includes:
if i[:1] != '<':
i = '"%s"' % i
writer.header.writeln('#include %s' % i)
writer.writeln('#include %s' % i)
so caller of the script can choose the version of include to use.
What about for instance if we want to include a system header?
I decided to use <> specification and quote using " by default as
this is easier if a shell is involved (which happens using Makefiles).
Frediano
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel