Bruno Haible wrote:
Lorenzo Bettini wrote:
You see, there's no clear borderline between <> and "".
I see, but are <> ensuring that the version of gnulib is used (even if
getopt.h is available in the system)?
The -I flags added by automake and gnulib-tool normally guarantee that.
Normally. I.e
Lorenzo Bettini wrote:
> > You see, there's no clear borderline between <> and "".
>
> I see, but are <> ensuring that the version of gnulib is used (even if
> getopt.h is available in the system)?
The -I flags added by automake and gnulib-tool normally guarantee that.
Normally. I.e. not if the
On 12/20/06, Lorenzo Bettini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You see, there's no clear borderline between <> and "".
I see, but are <> ensuring that the version of gnulib is used (even if
getopt.h is available in the system)?
Hi Lorenzo,
Not possible. The only difference between them from the c
Bruno Haible wrote:
Lorenzo Bettini wrote:
gnulib-tool says:
You may need to add #include directives for the following .h files.
#include
shouldn't it be
#include "getopt.h"
?
Given that the source and build directories are searched by the compiler
(due to the many "-I." flags), it
Lorenzo Bettini wrote:
> gnulib-tool says:
>
> You may need to add #include directives for the following .h files.
>#include
>
> shouldn't it be
>
>#include "getopt.h"
>
> ?
Given that the source and build directories are searched by the compiler
(due to the many "-I." flags), it boil
by the way, upon importing getopt, gnulib-tool says:
You may need to add #include directives for the following .h files.
#include
shouldn't it be
#include "getopt.h"
?
--
+-+
| Lorenzo Bettini ICQ# lbetto, 16080134 |
| PhD
