| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Didier Verna <didier(at)xemacs(dot)org> |
| Cc: | bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, XEmacs beta testers <xemacs-beta(at)xemacs(dot)org>, Oliver Elphick <Oliver(dot)Elphick(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> |
| Subject: | Re: #include oddity in v7.0b3 |
| Date: | 2000-04-10 17:45:39 |
| Message-ID: | 17020.955388739@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-bugs |
Didier Verna <didier(at)xemacs(dot)org> writes:
> The file `libpq-fe.h' #include's the file `postgres_ext.h' using <>
> instead of "" (line 27). As a consequence, applications that just do:
> | #include <full/path/to/libpq-fe.h>
> can't build anymore because the file `postgres_ext.h' is not in the path.
> What do you think ? Was this change intentional ?
It was. Someone else complained that the other way didn't work for them.
At least from the point of libpq, I think they were right.
Offhand, if you do not put -I into your compile switches, I'd be
somewhat surprised that either way would work for you. Certainly
hardcoding a full path into application source code is a completely
unportable way to do things...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Didier Verna | 2000-04-10 18:07:05 | Re: #include oddity in v7.0b3 |
| Previous Message | Didier Verna | 2000-04-10 16:40:43 | #include oddity in v7.0b3 |