This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: bits/libc-tsd.h, bits/atomic.h and other non-installed headers?
- From: Roland McGrath <roland at hack dot frob dot com>
- To: Thomas Schwinge <thomas at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Andreas Jaeger <aj at suse dot com>, libc-alpha <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
- Subject: Re: bits/libc-tsd.h, bits/atomic.h and other non-installed headers?
- References: <518BF284 dot 8020602 at suse dot com> <20130529215556 dot 7108E2C07C at topped-with-meat dot com> <87y5are7hw dot fsf at kepler dot schwinge dot homeip dot net>
> Or, perhaps even the other way round: have installed headers in
> installed/ subdirectories, for stating this explicitly, and anything else
> being local? Would that also help with more easily doing repository-wide
> checking of the installed headers for namespace-cleanness and such
> things?
If there is a convention that reliably distinguishes installed from
non-installed headers (when one is looking at the header itself), it
really doesn't matter which direction it goes. If one wanted the
convention also to distinguish them when one is looking at an #include
in a source file, then Joseph's point would go to that. Personally,
I am only really concerned about the former.