[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       oprofile-list
Subject:    Re: include file order
From:       John Levon <levon () movementarian ! org>
Date:       2002-08-05 9:34:04
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Aug 05, 2002 at 09:56:17AM -0400, William Cohen wrote:

> Is there a particular reason the system includes (<>) come after the 
> user includes ("") in the files? Here is an example from 
> libop++/op_print_event.cpp:
> 
> #include "op_print_event.h"
> #include "op_events_desc.h"
> 
> #include <iostream>
> #include <iomanip>

Actually things are a little inconsistent, if you look around the
opposite case is pretty common too

> This is the reverse order of what I have seen in other projects, e.g. 
> GCC. It would be unlikely that the system includes have any dependencies 
> on the user includes, but it would be possible that a user include could 
> have a dependency on a system include. Wouldn't it make more sense to 
> have the system includes before the user includes? I have seen this 
> particular example break on a gcc compiler.

I tend to prefer headers to include the system headers it depends on.
But TBH I have no strong feelings either way, and we should remain
consistent.

So I guess I will take any patches to move the system headers above the
user ones ...

regards
john

-- 
"It is unbecoming for young men to utter maxims."
	- Aristotle


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]