Re: C++ include path

[Joerg Sonnenberger <joerg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Apr 05, 2004 at 01:57:17PM -0700, Matthew Dillon wrote:
>     We definitely want to do the double-pathing (BLAH and BLAH/compilerrev).
>     Do you think we are going to hit any major problems by making BLAH 
>     /usr/include/c++ instead of the FreeBSD /usr/include/g++ ?  

Well, I hope I got all references to /usr/include/g++ in world, normal
programs are not supposed to mess with it anyway. On Linux for example,
you have /usr/include/g++ for gcc 2.x and /usr/include/g++-3 for 3.x.

>     I'm a bit undecided... I don't mind us using /usr/include/g++ and
>     /usr/include/g++/<compiler_rev> instead of c++ and c++/<compiler_rev>,
>     but the name 'c++' seems to be more compiler agnostic then g++, especially
>     since we are breaking the compiler-specific files into their own
>     <compiler_rev> sub directory.  I've been holding off cleaning up the
>     old /usr/include/g++ in upgrade_etc until we come to a decision on how
>     we actually want it to look.

Yes, I prefer /usr/include/c++ for general headers too. I'm still not sure
wether it is better to keep the compiler specific headers in a subdirectory
of c++ or use e.g. g++/<REVISION> for those. But the current scheme seems
fine and an additional change not really worth the effort.

Joerg

> 
>     What do you think?
> 
> 						-Matt
>